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?