That Little Topic of Pro-Rape Advocacy

Ever since The Daily Antifeminist launched it seems like the topic of pro-rape advocacy has come up again, and it’s already starting to cause a triggering even on pro-paedophilia (!) blogs like Heretic TOC (see the comments). More mainstream social communities, including the mainstream press, don’t seem to have caught on yet. Whether they will or whether they just ignore it remains to be seen.

So what’s all the fuss about? Well it seems The Daily Antifeminist has published articles such as “Rape Must be Legal, Here’s Why” and “The Burning of Widows and Virgin Sacrifice Were Pro-Social Practices“.

In the first article he makes sure we have no illusions over the definition of rape he is using and that he believes rape rape should be legal, not just the watered down feminist definition:

The definition of “rape” which I’m using here is the scenario of “man having sex with a woman against her will, using physical force to achieve that end.” All the other definitions of “rape” are actually definitions of other things, not really rape.

I believe that, in and of itself, this action of “rape” should not be against the law. There should not be any law that says “it is illegal for a man to use physical force in order to fuck an unwilling woman.”

He doesn’t mince his words, but that’s not all:

If a female is younger than 8, and you want to fuck her, then you must have the permission of the male authority who owns her: a father, a husband, or another male relative. If for some reason no man owns her, perhaps because she’s an orphan or whatever, then you can rape her at will.

If a woman is 8 or older, and you want to fuck her, then either she is married and you have to ask permission to fuck her from her husband (and why would you? men don’t usually agree to becoming cuckolds), or she is not married, meaning she is under no one’s authority, being no one’s property — because the hitherto recognized authority of fathers or other male relatives no longer applies after reaching that age — and, therefore, she is “fair game” and you can fuck her at will.

An 8-year-old woman ceases to be the property of her blood family; she can only belong to a husband. Otherwise, if there’s no husband to own her, she doesn’t legally belong to anyone – RAPE HER ALL YOU LIKE.

Now he’s into entirely new ground, advocating the rape of children (new ground #1) and advocating this in the traditional context of making young girls into property (new ground #2). Actually I’m not sure the idea of making young girls into property is exactly *new* – it is indeed somewhat traditional – but it’s new for a modern feminist audience as they find it shocking that anyone could possibly think like that.

Just to round things off, let’s take a quick peak at his second article on virgin sacrifices:

Similarly, in ancient Greece and Rome, where people married “for love,” there had to be incentives for women to get married. One such incentive was the practice of virgin sacrifice. I mean, that’s my hunch at any rate; I’m not a scholar on this issue. But it makes sense: if we sacrifice a young beautiful female virgin to the gods every once in a while, the rest of the females get a clear message which says that it’s time for them to find a husband already.

So he’s advocating for sacrificing virgins too. You should probably read the full articles to fully understand what he’s saying. One of the underlying themes in both articles seems to be that, under feminism, many men are suffering from involuntary celibacy as our feminist anti-sex society, with all its associated AOC and variously defined “rape” laws makes it hard for many men to settle down and get married. So he is proposing to create disincentives for women to not marry (via legalised rape or virgin sacrifices).

In many ways I’d put his articles in a kind of “Roosh V meets Paedophilia but going a bit further still” category. Some might remember Roosh once stating himself that rape should be legalised on private property. Whilst that was certainly one of the most provocative he’s written, there’s plenty of other stuff pushing the boundaries.

So now we have some background, let’s get to the kind of triggering it caused even amongst those who consider themselves to be “pro-paedophilia”. On Heretic TOC one user going by the name of ‘MAPAlert’ writes:

Please publicly denounce this sociopathic monster, it is a horrible and evil being, who publicly places all of us who are attracted to minors as sick and monsters that we seek to rape, enslave and destroy little girls and women.

If we don’t denounce it publicly as an anathema to the attraction of minors, pedophilia etc. these evil people who only seek their egotistical desires over others will win.

I even encourage you to report it to the authorities, it is something unpleasant but this is a sexual and mental psychopath, who Advocate even of the violent rape of girls under the age of 8, who seeks to enslave women and is self-confessed potential rapist.

Wow, this guy, who is presumably a minor attracted person himself and no doubt gets other people wanting to report him to the authorities actually wants to report someone else who airs (possibly) even more controversial views to the authorities. He even accuses The Daily Antifeminist of being a “self-confessed potential rapist”. I don’t think so, I read the whole Daily Antifeminist blog, and whilst he said he supports rape, he never said he is intending – or likely – to rape. After all, he has a wife!

Next up we see ‘Russell Orwell Churchland’ detail what he’d like to see done to rapists:

3. Rape (Unconsensual sexual activity) = No, I am against this fully & I am not fond of rapists. Letting the anti out of me atm, I hate rapists. I want to see them die a slow & painful death. I have not seen anyone who “publicly advocated” for rape but a few, omnipolitics16 (In a video, which was satire as he admitted at the end but never stated he was against it.) & Roosh V., who was advocating for not prosecuting men for having sex with women who regretted it and filed for rape charges.

At least he’s insightful enough to see that there might be a bit of subtlety (or satire as he calls it) to all this:

I hope this guy is being satirical, I am a open minded person & a very empathetic one but I hate rapists & rape; I take a clear stand against it, just like murder & child rape.

And then we have Ed Chambers making the comment:

No means no with regards to consensual sexual activity. However, the laws on the age of consent are a different matter…

That’s a saying straight out of the feminist text book. Whatever happened to the saying “no means maybe”? Even Warren Buffett was lynched by feminists recently for bringing this old saying to the fore. I think there’s a lot of validity in that saying. Many might say no not because they are sure they don’t want to, but because they are anxious, because they don’t know, because it’s unexpected and it’s just easier to say no. And so, ironically, taking ‘no’ to mean ‘maybe’ could work well for both them and you. I wonder how many women are now old with cats all because men are now taking no means no seriously?

Ok, so now we get to my take on The Daily Antifeminist. As you might have guessed I am not nearly as triggered by his views as some others. Sure, you can argue you think he’s going a bit far. Some of his more extreme ideas are ideas that I don’t think I would implement in practice. But in a way I’m kind of glad he said them. For one, it means that there’s actually someone in the world more extreme than me (yay!). I also think that by doing this he is widening the overton window. Currently, the most extreme, fringe and repulsive view is considered to be someone who advocates for consensual sex with a 12 year old to be legal. But what The Daily Antifeminist has argued is that the forceful and violent rape of a 12 year old should be legal. This now creates a conundrum for our moral arbiters – if they expose him and vilify him for his views then suddenly those who merely argue for consensual sex with 12 year olds actually look rather moderate in comparison and are no longer in the extreme fringe. Even if they don’t expose and vilify him, then if he continues to accumulate an ever larger following sooner or later a moral confrontation is inevitable and thus, the overton window shifts.

To take things further, I think it’s also important to put his views within the context of our current feminist society. Many seem far more willing to vilify The Daily Antifeminist than they are willing to vilify feminists. That, to me, is a problem. It’s a problem because I honestly cannot see how advocating for the rape of women is worse than advocating for a man to be jailed, castrated and/or executed for touching a girl’s tits – and even if he didn’t do it! So whilst I don’t necessarily agree with the practical application of The Daily Antifeminist’s views if you were to give me a choice between the current feminist system of justice and his system of justice I don’t think you can say the feminist system is better. He’s proposed a system that is genuinely the opposite – essentially what you might call a ‘meninist’ system. Feminists keep attacking us whenever we call for rationality calling us ‘misogynists’, ‘rapists’ etc but he is actually pretty much the only person in the world who has genuinely proposed a system that is the opposite of the feminist system.

For decades feminists have been given leeway to create a wide variety of ‘sexual crimes’ with seemingly every little excuse that they can come up with for why a particular type of ‘sex crime’ might be harmful or cause harm to society at large being fully accepted with no consideration at all for the men on the receiving end of some of the most barbaric and disproportionate punishments known to mankind. Yet when The Daily Antifeminist comes along and suggests a similar sort of thing but in reverse i.e. he proposes that women who fail to marry by a certain age (the crime) should be raped or sacrificed (the punishment) and justifies it with the fact that feminism is causing involuntary celibacy (social harm) and so such a law would drastically reduce this (the excuse) he is crucified! If you really think you can give a justification as to how a feminist sex crime law is so much better than what The Daily Antifeminist is proposing then by all means try to in the comment section…!

Now, outside of his most controversial articles he’s also made some good points regarding, for instance, accusing the alt-right of basically just being a slightly watered down version of feminism where the watering down suddenly disappears as soon as the ‘male suspect’ is black or brown or some other non-white colour. A racist movement more than an antifeminist one, then. But I’d also accuse the pro-paedophilia movement of the same – though not racism – but they still exhibit many feminist qualities. Like the alt-right they often seem worried as to what the women – or the feminists – will think of them. They seem overly obsessed about causing ‘harm’ to a child or even a woman where ‘harm’ is never specifically defined. Oh AOC laws are bad they say, but as soon as a man causes ‘harm’ he should be put to death! But what if this harm was comparatively minor or accidental? Certainly then, some proportionality is still needed. But proportionality is not something the feminist mindset understands – if a woman can be identified as a potential ‘victim’ and a man can be identified as a potential ‘perpetrator’ then life imprisonment or death are the only suitable punishments! Gone are the medieval ideas of an eye for an eye, now it’s all about taking a life for a mere smack of the bum. Oh how medieval justice sounds so much fairer! And I was taught it was barbaric! My point is, even pro-paedophilia individuals exhibit this gynocentric tendency towards excessively punishing men whilst idealising women and The Daily Antifeminist is the only one to come along and throw the baby out with the bath water and campaign for the complete opposite.

There might be more I could say on this, but for now let’s just finish off by saying that even if you don’t think that female virgins should be killed but you genuinely believe in a just legal system that at least treats men as well as it treats women then I think The Daily Antifeminist is still one to watch and support his right to free speech. In between the controversial articles he’s also written some very perceptive stuff that I think should be food for thought, and even in his most controversial articles I think that if you don’t take them too literally they contain serious questions that need serious answers. I suspect his most controversial articles are a combination of trolling and seriousness, since – as I’ve outlined above – I think there’s an argument that what he proposes isn’t worse than feminism and, whilst given the brutal feminist world we live in it might well be that he seriously wouldn’t object to his ideas being implemented in practice over the current system, I suspect he’d actually prefer a more balanced system, albeit one more in favor of men.

For all their faults Milo Yiannopoulis and Roosh V have brought more discredit to feminism and sexual assault hysteria than anyone else and both followed the formula of provocation that pushed the boundaries, got them labelled as preachers of hate and caused serious triggerings. So far any movement focusing on youth sexuality has failed but The Daily Antifeminist is the only one following a well-trodden formula to success. It’s risky, but I’m going to wish him luck because I do believe that his substantive points have merit and I’m not going to take everything he says too literally. If you want to disagree and argue that sex with 15 year olds is only OK if it’s consensual and you don’t beat them around the head and drug them, then by all means, but let’s not advocate for locking up The Daily Antifeminist on the grounds of what he says because then your position will be the most extreme one, and you don’t want that, do you?

This entry was posted in Articles, Free Speech, Hypocrisy, Men's Rights, News, Paedohysteria. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to That Little Topic of Pro-Rape Advocacy

  1. Grazor says:

    The problem is that these LGBTP pedos are delusional and are also ironically Blue Knights. They never really abandoned the toxic moral framework of feminists. Instead, they are trying to get the feminists to accept them as another victim group. Howver, feminists hate pedos even more than conservatives though. The LGBTP outlook is similar to the appeasement strategy used by Western Europen ruling class before WWII, hoping to gain the Nazis’ favor.

  2. dailyantifeminist says:

    The thing is, I don’t want to attack the people at Heretic TOC. While I have criticized the strategy of the boylovers as counterproductive — they have not a single achievement to boast of; in fact, they made the situation more difficult for us, because 95% of society is heterosexual while they turned pedophilia into a gay thing in the public mind — I see them as fellow travelers, who are exploring the mess we are in from their own perspective. And another thing that should be criticized about their strategy is its narrowness. When I put legalization of rape on the table, I force the other side to consider its perspective on the issue; these are, indeed, “uncharted waters.” And moreover, it becomes part of a larger worldview regarding sex. Let me explain.

    Many of these people are single-issue crusaders. Many of them only want to talk about pedophilia, exclusively, and see any discussion of rape, false accusations, status dynamics between men and women, etc. as belonging to other, separate niches. This to me indicates that, at best, they are confused about the true nature of the problem, or worse, are incapable of seeing that there *is* a bigger picture at all. I offer a coherent worldview (if you want to be especially edgy, use the German word for worldview: weltanschauung) about the whole subject of sex, from rape to pedophilia to hebephilia to ephebophilia to prostitution to child prostitution to MGTOW to marriage to patriarchy – the whole spectrum of it. I have an absolutely pro-male sexuality view, and an absolutely patriarchal view. In contrast, many of these people either don’t care about instituting patriarchy, or are actively opposed to it; and they don’t give a shit about the issue of male sexuality, since they only have pedophilia — and, at that, it’s usually one specific type of pedophilia — on their minds.

    I’m not trying to flatter myself by making this comparison. Currently I’ve only got some 7,000+ views, and it seems that it’s probably mostly the same people driving this trafficking. I may succeed in the future, but I have not succeeded *yet*. The point is that, so I believe, if many people adopted my views and my strategy, it could’ve become something quite influential in terms of this “battle of ideas” I’m often referring to. Had I started blogging this kind of stuff in 2008 rather than now, who knows what I could have done. But here we are, so let’s make the best of what we’ve got. I need to start shilling for my blog on reddit and in other communities, but I have no time to do all that. Writing provocative blog posts is more of my thing. I’m just a guy with a blog.

    As for the virgin sacrifice/widow burning thing, I make these propositions because I want to “take the fight to the enemy’s side.” Let the White Knights explain why these pro-social practices were wrong, after I have explained why these practices are right. And as you note, in the process, the Overton Window is wholly shattered. Nathan Larson told the incels “the only thing you have to lose is your virginity,” and now I am telling these people that the only thing they have to lose by adopting my strategy is… see, I have no idea what they’ve got to lose. The situation is getting progressively worse — as you said in a comment, in the 70s these “AOC violations” had not been treated so seriously, and CP used to be legal — and doing “more of the same” is insane. It’s perplexing that they don’t realize it.

    Also, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for having your own blog. Pretty sure that if you hadn’t had your Holocaust21, I wouldn’t have started my The Daily Antifeminist. Hopefully this community will grow into something significant. I’m giving it 2 years. If by then we’re at the same exact place where we are now, I’ll consider myself a loser, and will have to think again about my own strategy.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Yes I don’t particularly want to attack those at Heretic TOC either, but some criticisms had to be made because too many of them seemed to fail to see the subtleness 😦

      Actually it was probably Heretic TOC, The Antifeminist, Eivind Berge and Human Stupidity who inspired me to start my blog, haha!

      I think your biggest difficulty will be getting your blog to be both visible and interesting to people outside the current select group. In terms of visibility the issues are:

      1) Large evil feminist corporations (twitter, facebook, google, reddit etc) trying to take away your speech by disabling your accounts or shadow banning you. While I’m on this point, I’d actually really like to see a judicial review of that behaviour in the US since they have constitutionally protected free speech but I believe courts have ruled that private corporations are fine to restrict free speech just not government. However, I wonder if this would stand up to a challenge given that these corporations are now as big and powerful as the government. Also see James Damore’s class action against google.
      2) Admins on smaller forums tending to be SJWs and wanting to ban your speech anyway, or, if they aren’t particularly SJW, feeling that they need to be SJWs otherwise their might be some law to put them away or some TOS to take down their site.

      Then in terms of making it interesting I get the feeling a lot of people just don’t care about age of consent issues or for some reason insist on strongly disagreeing despite the facts. Maybe you need to find a formula to attract a wider audience, I don’t know. Or maybe this issue is really just an illusion and it’s actually the visibility/censorship problem as above.

    • I see your point more clearly now, this is a real eye opener. i never really looked at the big picture of the oppressed sexuality of paedophiles, instead I focused on the oppressed sexuality of paedophiles. Yes it is indeed true that issues that are tied with feminism do have a odd correlation with affecting paedophilia and sexuality. (Not just for children) Now, even if I disagree with your system and your advocation, which I am kind of phased with confusion on whether or not some or all of what you wrote was authentic but I can agree with you on many things your blog has came with and I as well disagree with the system of feminism. I completely was actually triggered at tom’s thought & comment for not accepting your blog into his blog roll just because of one post, since many of your blog posts actually have well thought out arguments and pieces not only denoting to paedophilia, but also to feminism.

  3. Someone asked for my response on dailyantifeminists article and I essentially disagreed and said that as satire it is interesting. When talking to dailyantifeminist I told him that I may disagree with his more extreme views, he also has plenty of, in my opinion, rational views. Plus I also alluded to the Overton Window when I stated that his views make my views more tolerable, similar to how Malcolm X’s views made MLK’s views more tolerable.

    Modern discourse has got people thinking they need to denounce aggressively everything one says and everything about that person if they hold an extreme view or a few. Sorry, I don’t see it like that. Not to mention, as a free speech advocate, I enjoy that there are still platforms for people who have such extreme views.

  4. Libertine says:

    I wouldn’t advocate rape as a ‘public policy’….I think there would be a breakdown in law and order: Though some laws do need changing and breaking at times. I’m not saying I wouldn’t indulge in the ‘spoils of war’ if everybody else is, and that it would be the only chance to bang a ripe teen since my 20s. but even then, I doubt I’d use more force then is necessary.

    This is an interesting article about male suicide:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11377311/If-as-many-women-killed-themselves-as-men-wed-never-hear-the-end-of-it.html

    • holocaust21 says:

      Well essentially what I was saying is that the breakdown in law and order has already happened under ‘feminism’. I mean just look at it, a woman can merely accuse a man of rape and he will be automatically arrested, tried and there is a good chance of a conviction. So legalising rape won’t cause any further breakdown in law and order than has already happened. Also, by making sex cheap & accessible it will probably reduce the need to rape, so ironically it might actually happen less (!). It’s like the Milton Diamond study that showed child sexual abuse went through the roof when child porn was criminalised.

      • rearview says:

        Some might argue we already in a war and therefore it’s a duty to act accordingly.
        Even though the post was presented as satire and shoving their moral relevance up their tight asses.(puns intended). They just might use it to their advantage. Perhaps discussion of such matters would be better in private conversation.

  5. W says:

    Just I write that you are vegetarian and me vegan on the dailyantifeminist blog and the next post has write is about using animals to make organs for men:

    https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/we-must-invent-new-organ-restoration-technologies/

    This is a agent provocateur, but well done like the clovergender ones, which can last for months until the cake is discovered, so that people associate anti-feminism and attraction to minors with aberrant beings and opinions and also go to links whit illegal content.

    • dailyantifeminist says:

      Heh. I mean, I’ve said a number of times that I’m a troll, and use trolling as a method to convey certain ideas, but sure, let’s go with “agent provocateur.” Just three questions:

      Why is it “aberrant” to use lab mice to grow organs for men?

      When did I link to illegal content? (That Tumblr vid is legal, otherwise it would’ve been removed a long time ago)

      How will you define me if not only will I “last” more than a few months, but actually become popular and revive the genuine resistance to Feminism?

  6. Pingback: There is Something Salutary About Fertility Goddess Worship – The Daily Antifeminist

  7. Pingback: Tom Grauer EXPOSED as a Feminist by Fidelbogen (Lulz Intensify) – The Daily Antifeminist

  8. Yure says:

    I’m pretty peaceful person, that’s why I can’t swallow that one point Tom Grauer is making. At most, rape should be a crime of violence, but not stop being crime. I really can not accept the use of force to submit the will of anyone, no matter if for sex or not. Nonetheless, if he think he should continue advocating such a thing, alright, it’s free speech too, which is something I also value.
    On the subject of LGBTP that the first commenter came up with, it’s useless to seek association with someone who doesn’t want to associate with you. Attaching a P to it makes nothing official. So, I agree with him that “LGBTP” is pretty ridiculous. I think MAPs should make their own thing. While LGBT people tries to encompass gender-related orientations, MAPs should encompass age-related ones.

    • holocaust21 says:

      As I think I tried to say above, but maybe wasn’t clear enough is I think it is firstly about causing maximum triggering. If you advocate for touching a bum being OK or bonking a 15 year old being OK then feminists will always try to move the goal posts and put it under the category of “sexual violence” so legitimising rape means now they can’t do that as we’re making a mockery of the whole idea of rape. Secondly, one thing that you should consider is much worse than rape is sending a guy to prison for the rest of his life for just bonking a 15 year old. So if the feminists think that is OK then I think we need to point out to them that, therefore, by their own logic, it’s fine for us to argue that rape is OK.

      That’s my take, anyway. Grauer might have been trying to make a different point. Does that make sense?

  9. Pingback: First Feminist Admits Rape is a Low Level Crime | holocaust21

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.