From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.And that's one reason why feminists hate Chris Brown so much. They partially hate Chris Brown because his beating of Rhianna reflects the biological fact of female submissiveness. It's curious though that feminists blame "the media" for convincing the Buzzfeed women linked above that they like abusive men:
Rape or near-rape fantasies are central to romance novels, one of the perennial best-selling categories in fiction. These books are often called "bodice-rippers" and have titles like Love's Sweet Savage Fury, which imply at least some degree of force. In them, a handsome cad becomes so overwhelmed by his attraction to the heroine that he loses all control and must have her, even if she refuses--which she does initially, but then eventually melts into submission, desire, and ultimately fulfillment.
This disturbing piece on Buzzfeed shows the ramifications of our collective failure to take perpetrators to task: women (not one or two but many) literally declaring their willingness to be beaten by the star as a means of expressing their love for him. It doesn’t get more clear than that.Hilariously, misogynists like myself give women way more credit. Why would any woman actually believe the following, "you must allow a man to give you black eyes and break your arms in order to have a loving relationship." Only a crazy person would actually accept that premise; in reality, women don't need coercing, they willfully enter and stay in these abusive relationships because they like it.
But feminists also hate him because doing so maintains their social power. In a feminist screed (redundant), some woman makes it seem like Chris Brown killed someone. Yes, killed someone like Senator Ted Kennedy, beloved actor and Super Bowl commercial star Matthew Broderick, and America's Got Talent judge Brandy. No, he basically got into a bar fight and beat up a person - not a "woman", but a person with equal moral value as all other people. One sees much worse every weekend outside bars or even broadcasted on MTV, such as The Real World episode where a male cast member almost went blind from a punch. The feminist blogosphere's angry that Brown got to perform at this weekend's Grammys:
I’m sick and tired of people acting like it’s no big deal that Chris Brown will be performing at the Grammys.I'll ignore their contention that Brown hasn't gone on a three apology tour for throwing a few punches. Instead, let me just ask what exactly do they want from the guy? Why don't they offer him the same moral exoneration given to cold-blooded killers like Tookie Williams and the murderers of Amy Biehl? Will they ever give him a second chance? Why is three years not enough and, while I think I know the answer, how many years would be sufficient?
We should be furious.
This is not okay with me. A man hitting a woman in anger is unacceptable and is not easily forgotten or forgiven. A man who hits a woman in anger deserves to be reported to the authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of who might be inconvenienced in the process. A man who hits a woman in anger may eventually be permitted to go on with his own life, but he is not permitted back in my life, even if it’s been three whole years.
It is absolutely unacceptable that someone who is known to have perpetuated violence against a woman has been so uncritically welcomed and promoted by the music industry.
Many in the alt-right argue that blacks get a pass over other protected groups, but this isn't really the case. Feminists will go after a black man in order to maintain their own social capital and the overall narrative of leftism. In fact, they will never actually forgive Chris Brown; they will hold it over his head as a permanent mark upon his moral being. That way, as done with white men in general, feminists can propagate the original sin theory of the (white) patriarchy, casting all non-minorities as morally flawed unless they buy into feminist and liberal theology.
Note: I actually agree that Chris Brown is an asshole and I assuredly do not condone serious domestic abuse even though I understand women like it. I only condone the Sean Connery paradigm of domestic abuse. But the social and legal punishment Brown suffered has certainly not fit his relatively harmless "crime."
69 comments:
Feminists should be going after Rihanna if they are really outraged. She took him back, after all. Her fame lends credence to her actions, and her actions are of forgiveness and acceptance. I am puzzled by feminists' lack of vision in this respect.
Nothing to be puzzled about feminists. They're assholes...
-Sweep the leg
I've always felt domestic abuse is the low-IQ equivalent of S&M. Violence is sexy for the evolutionary reasons cited--the world is a violent place, and violent men are feared and not messed with. Look around and you'll see lots of feminists admitting they're kinky.
Feminism is best understood as an uneasy alliance of (1) lesbians, who are female-supremacists and hate alpha men as rivals, and (2) ambitious, hypergamous straight women who love alphas and desire economic independence of marriage to a beta.
Outrage over domestic violence comes from the lesbian faction, who is tone-deaf to heterosexual eros and who also has an ulterior motive of propagandizing fear of men, the better to recruit young girls into the brawny arms of Susan.
She's lucky that it happened. After all, a decent body and a mediocre talent would get her nothing in the real world.
Add a feminist incident, and you've got a career.
Like I said, she's lucky.
Doesn't it really hurt to get hit in the face?
to clarify--women have RAVISHMENT fantasies
it's ravishment when a man you are ATTRACTED to overcomes your coy resistance and takes you--cf. Rhett Butler carrying Scarlett up the stairs because he can't take being denied sex by her anymore
it's rape when a nigger pulls you in an alley at 3 am
Women are attracted to the TYPE of men that would hit them and always have been, the difference now is women no longer how to or care how to behave with them in a manner so as NOT to get hit.
to SFG As to SM for low IQ people, you have it backwards--SM is phony, beta, child's playacting of dominance for the oversocialized--in which the submissive partner's needs and pleasure are paramount and they "top from the bottom" with "safe words" and rules. with a truly dominant male its about his wants and needs and there's no safe word, except maybe "ow! you are really going to kill me please stop!!!".
I agree with dana about S&M. It's fake. I rather have a man who I did really fear.
Only if I cross him, of course, not just in general.
lara
after rhett ravishes her, scarlett wakes up singing a song, if you recall, the lyrics she sings are "oh she wept with delight when he gave her a smile, and trembled with fear at his frown"--we have just completely lost touch with human nature
I remember that scene well. I think your point is a good one.
S & M is as fake, disturbing and disgusting as porn. They all have weird fetishes.
I was taught: never, ever strike a woman.
The three times in my life that i've breached that creed, I felt a weird mixture of regret and catharsis ----- but: it's true, the recipients all displayed a sort-of deference to me they didn't show prior to being smacked.
Also: I recall an incident in a libe-music bar in which a doorman, thinking I had snuck into the venue, approached me from behind and grabbed me somewhat aggressively; I responded by throwing him off me and backhanding him hard across the jaw while he wasn't expecting it. And I distinctly noticed shortly after that the bartender, while talking to me about what happened, was clearly eroticized to some degree by what I did; she was clearly showign some interest toward me that wasn't there prior (I mean this seriously, or to hte best of my objective observational abilities...).
context: I'm a 6'3" biracial-black male, so I've ALWAYS felt a bit self-conscious to specifically NOT be perceived as violent or threatening, a sort-of overcompensating at times, to avoid acting-out the stereotype of the 'violent black male.'
Yet here were circumstances where my falling short of that ideal seemed to bring an unexpected 'benefit' to me.
(Overall, I'm rather athletic, but not at all violent; e.g., never was into boxing, wrestling or any contact sports beyond football).
Boo hoo, a worthless nigger thug is getting maligned in the feminist press. So unfair! The horror!
Don't defend Chris Brown, simply point out that Riyanna took him back and that thousands of other girls are still begging for him to beat them too.
Let the feminists shriek and shriek and shriek, let a wedge be driven into the mighty woman-bloc.
Secondary point: Keep in mind that as far as feminists are concerned, woman-beating chris brown and the beta accountant who sheepishly tells a girl she has nice eyes are both "assaulting women".
"to SFG As to SM for low IQ people, you have it backwards--SM is phony, beta, child's playacting of dominance for the oversocialized--in which the submissive partner's needs and pleasure are paramount and they "top from the bottom" with "safe words" and rules. with a truly dominant male its about his wants and needs and there's no safe word, except maybe "ow! you are really going to kill me please stop!!!"."
No, that's exactly the point.
Stupid unhealthy people get into abusive relationships.
Smart unhealthy people fake abusive relationships with 'safewords' so the top doesn't go to jail.
Healthy people do neither.
"Feminism is best understood as an uneasy alliance of (1) lesbians, who are female-supremacists and hate alpha men as rivals, and (2) ambitious, hypergamous straight women who love alphas and desire economic independence of marriage to a beta."
Agree with (1), (2) not so much. There's always been a tension between the gay and straight feminist factions. Ambitious hypergamous straight women will go for alphas by fornication or marriage, depending on social conditions. Who benefits from feminism are *ugly smart women*. Careers for women allow intelligent but unattractive women access to high-earning men they otherwise would not have had.
There's thus a Jewish connection, of course. Jewish women are...unattractive, even to Jewish men. High extroversion, low agreeableness, and high neuroticism are sometimes useful in a businessman, but in a wife !? But get them into law school and they can pick up a rich fellow lawyer instead of having to compete with the blond shiksa secretary.
Actually, I'd love One to do a post on this. I think it's right for this blog.
You could also consider that feminism causes intelligent men to marry intelligent women rather than pretty ones (due to access, not male preference!), which may have advantages in terms of having a larger smart fraction, but also long-term dysgenic effects given the depressing effect on the birth rate of the upper middle class.
(See, it's got feminism, IQ, Jews, and HBD! It'll light the blog on fire!)
"You could also consider that feminism causes intelligent men to marry intelligent women rather than pretty ones (due to access, not male preference!), which may have advantages in terms of having a larger smart fraction, but also long-term dysgenic effects given the depressing effect on the birth rate of the upper middle class."
theoretically, feminism will have increased (in the short term) the smart fraction at the expense of the beautiful fraction.
Claiming this was a bar fight is not accurate:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1606481/chris-brown-police-report-provides-details-altercation.jhtml
In fact, it was a good old fashioned beatdown, with Rhianna not even able to throw a punch back his way. Domestic violence in any sense of the term (keep in mind that in CA a woman's family is being broken up against her will due to her hubby leaving a bruise on her shoulder where he grabbed it - Google Mirkarimi), so we shouldn't downplay what happened. That Rhianna took Chris back is, indeed, on her, but it was still a violent assault by a man with apparent anger issues.
Secondly, as it has been mentioned before - women's "rape" fantasies almost invariably involve a male she is attracted to, and not just any old "man off the street". This is important because people often use the existence of rape fantasies to claim most women or many women downright like rape, instead if its not a very specific type of forced sex with her type of man, pretty much any woman can be hurt by the deed, sexual submissives included.
Clarence
He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand.
Gotta say, that sounds kind of awesome.
"Secondly, as it has been mentioned before - women's "rape" fantasies almost invariably involve a male she is attracted to, and not just any old "man off the street". This is important because people often use the existence of rape fantasies to claim most women or many women downright like rape, instead if its not a very specific type of forced sex with her type of man, pretty much any woman can be hurt by the deed, sexual submissives included."
this is not quite correct. the majority of women have rape fantasies, and of those women, the majority have "aversive" or "aversive + erotic" rape fantasies.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/more-women-have-rape-fantasies-than-previously-thought/
an aversive rape fantasy is one in which the fantasizer's non-consent is sincere; i.e., she isn't pretending to spurn the rapist's advances. rape fantasies are actually what they're about: fantasizing about being raped. any feminist who tells you otherwise can simply be countered by asking her why women don't regularly have fantasies about being cuddled to exhaustion by beta males.
this is an ugly facet of female sexuality -- as exemplified in real life by women like Rihanna and those sluts who begged for Chris Brown's fists of fury -- that most people, and especially feminists, are deathly afraid of confronting.
Feminists are just a grab-bag of man-haters, lesbians, loony lefties and bitter, oddball types with more influence than they deserve. On the other hand those young girls on that website are all goofs and dopes. If they're so enthralled with that crude, unattractive, ghetto-ish black guy then they should try their hand at setting up a pen-pal correspondence with some death-row inmates. Unlike Brown they'll actually write back and establish a fantasy love affair via love letters. Plus, they're certified super duper bad boys and thrillingly dangerous.
The level of insanity out there just makes my head swim.
I am going with Roissy on this one.
It isn't absolute. It is a distribution. About a third of women will put up with anything to be with an alpha. Another third are attracted to alphas but won't endlessly eat a crap sandwich. And the last third are repelled by them.
"The three times in my life that i've breached that creed, I felt a weird mixture of regret and catharsis ----- but: it's true, the recipients all displayed a sort-of deference to me they didn't show prior to being smacked."
In contrast, consider all the men who don't have to be told not to hit women and also never do it. Many have never hit a man either.
Just sayin.
"Feminism is best understood as an uneasy alliance of (1) lesbians, who are female-supremacists and hate alpha men as rivals,"
Many activist lesbians not only hate men but also despise a specific hetero woman as well, one who loves a man, loves motherhood and loves and being a woman.
In past decades this kind of lesbian activist in organizations such as NOW were content to attack the stay-at-home mother and wife, the perceived "stand by your man" type of woman, the one content to be subservient to their man, no matter the treatment they received from him.
However, over the years these activists have demonstrated more and more open hostility for all women who live rather normal, typical female lives, including college-educated women who are married, have babies, and who enjoy their marriages and their jobs.
In the end, I can only chalk up their hostility to human nature: when one feels himself or herself to be a minority that is not envied by others (as opposed to a minority envied because of some outstanding talent, say), one decides to attack the majority.
That is what these activists and their organizations now do--attack any woman who wishes to fall in love with a man, marry him, have children, etc. This is no different from other minority behavior: when NAM men and women show an interest in education, do well in school, when they pursue a middle class existence, their "kind" attack them.
Lesbian activists are no different from what I've observed. Same with gay male activists. The thing these people have in common is that they know they are not envied; they know no one else wants to be like them. They've gone from fighting for tolerance and understanding to actively trying to denigrate typical male and female behavior, mores, traditions.
At the root of their behavior is envy and, I suspect, a great deal of self-pity for having not been dealt the best of hands regarding their sexuality.
"the majority of women have rape fantasies, and of those women, the majority have "aversive" or "aversive + erotic" rape fantasies."
I can't say I'm always having violent rape fantasies, but honestly the thought of it doesn't bother me much.
Maybe I did more when I was younger, I can't really remember. I will say the idea of a foreign army taking over and having their way with the women did always seem a little exciting.
"I agree with dana about S&M. It's fake. I rather have a man who I did really fear."
"Ravishment" is the fantasy, yes, but "ravishment" involves no fear, just an overwhelming sense of awe at power and desire, which, in turn, gives rise to power and desire.
BTW, Gone with the Wind was fiction. I've awakened with a smile, but I can't say it was never due to fear or any love of being hurt. I hate being hurt.
The smile is the result of both contentment and wonder that he needed me and that I was pleasured. Don't forget, a woman takes great pride in awakening the beast in him (okay, so we kid ourselves), but the beast is never one that will hurt me.)
It's all part of the take-me fantasy, which has, unfortunately, been termed the "rape fantasy". Yes, it involves some force and some initial resistance, but the resistance is always a pretense, thus "rape" is a misnomer.
"but I can't say it was never due to fear or any love of being hurt."
Check that and change "never" to "ever."
I think most women who are the victims of domestic violence have the dullard's notion that unless he hits me, he doesn't really care about me. They "reason" that if the guy really didn't care about her, he'd just leave and stay away.
They've watched their mothers do the same thing and are copying the models of womanhood they've grown accustomed to. With others, there's no doubt they sahre genetic traits with their mothers and fathers that lend themselves to the sex/violence combo.
The centers of lust and territoriality for protection of what is one's own are adjacent to one another in the brain. Thus, in some people, men and women, it stands to reason that the cells/pathways are intermixed.
"Maybe I did more when I was younger, I can't really remember. I will say the idea of a foreign army taking over and having their way with the women did always seem a little exciting."
WTH?
LOL! Word verification:
punfed
"theoretically, feminism will have increased (in the short term) the smart fraction at the expense of the beautiful fraction."
Which is good for society--having the cutest girls doesn't really get us anything. However, I suspect the long-term dysgenic effects as bright women delay childbearing and have fewer children outweigh it.
"theoretically, feminism will have increased (in the short term) the smart fraction at the expense of the beautiful fraction."
Which is good for society--having the cutest girls doesn't really get us anything. However, I suspect the long-term dysgenic effects as bright women delay childbearing and have fewer children outweigh it.
It is a good idea to criticize the dumb women who pick the wrong guy time after time, but that doesn't mean the violent low-IQ thug is off the hook either. I suspect curbing the popular notion that "love is an overwhelming struggle, you must fight to make it work, blah blah" which is propagated by the media would do a lot to curb acceptance of domestic violence. I mean, when smart people watch a movie peddling those notions, they understand that it is exciting fiction and not reflective of an ideal reality. Dumb people can't distinguish between titillating fantasy and reality, and they internalize that crap. Of course, they probably have been doing it for centuries.
And as others have noted, there is a huge difference between ravishment fantasies involving an attractive/desirable male, and some thug or creep beating or raping women in an alley. Women don't read romance novels involving modern day criminals, they read "take me" fantasies involving 18th century dukes.
"Yes, it involves some force and some initial resistance, but the resistance is always a pretense, thus "rape" is a misnomer."
wrong. the resistance is not always a pretense, or even a pretense in the majority of fantasies. see my above comment.
have a great day...dont worry about angry fems, they just have nothing better to do than...the b word!
CH:
Two things.
I never claimed that rape fantasies involve "playacting" in terms of the violence. If it's a rape fantasy it must by the very definition of rape involve unwanted sex.
The second thing is most women's rape fantasies INVOLVE MEN they find attractive not just any man.
In short, they are being forced to have sex by attractive men in these fantasies, not booger crusted homeless drunks.Very few women have fantasies involving men raping them who make them feel
sexually disgusted.
Clarence
I think CH might be confusing an involuntary arousal, similar to salivating when you see food, and elaborate fantasies.
Actually CH is smart enough to know the difference. I think women get turned on by a lot of things that aren't really appropriate. That is different then what they would consider ideal.
The Antiquity and Low-Medieval pagan times are full of tales and stories of kings, princes and emperors beating women, torturing women and killing women, including sometimes their own sisters, without the slightest apprehension or regret.
It is quite obvious that the absurd ideology of nonviolence and submission towards women, which can be best summed up as French "galanterie", has wide Roman Catholic origins. Galanterie was at its height under the French King Louis IX, which is considered to have been the most religiously zealot of all monarchs in the Bourbon house.
Considering feminists like the Battered wives' defence which advocates killing for physical abuse, putting a bitch in her place with a higher level of violence sounds at least equal, if not a lesser crime.
Instead, let me just ask what exactly do they want from the guy?
That is the question.
Answer: They want him to have his testicles physically removed from his body on live television and placed in a jar thus attaining the highest form of enlightenment possible for a man.
This will solve many of the feminists' problems. First, it will show other perpetrators of domestic violence the only available path to forgiveness. Eventually, the new population of neuters will become a shining example of male citizenry and even non-convicts will be counselled to consider the operation. Afterall, their normal desires and behaviours are so undesirable in society that they'll be happier without them.
Second, no woman will be attracted to neutered Chris Brown, so, it will solve the problem of those pesky hormones causing women (including the feminists) to go crazy for violent men.
Finally, neutered Chris Brown will be the final nail in the coffin for the patriarchy.
Basically, this is the only avenue for forgiveness. It's inconceivable to feminists, that a nineteen year old man might have a tendancy to lose his temper and go out of control. Even more so, that once said man is faced with his weakness, he might be able to confront it and grow into a better man. In most people's mind, he is forever defined by those few moments trapped in a car with an irate, pestering woman.
Society today is in complete denial of the most important and obvious fact of this case: that a physically violent act can be provoked by a verbal assault. It's simply believed that men are to have infinite reserves of patients when dealing with highly emotional situations in which a woman might be hurt by their physicallity. This is just not true. Men are prone to violence when emotionally provoked. It doesn't do anyone any favours to expect them to be able to maintain control of themselves even under extreme pressure.
It does not excuse any of the actions of violent offenders, but, it could reduce the risk to women, if they don't act as though they are protected from male violence by an invisible shield. They should understand the cues that men give off when they are close to snapping and know when to back off. I'm not pretending to understand what their fight was over, but, it might not be a good idea to press an hot issue while he is operating a vehicle in which you are both confined. A silent ride home might be in order. It doesn't change any of the facts and the fight can be more controlled at home. Yeah, it's easier said than done, but, it's something to keep in mind.
Men, today, are also in denial of their own potential. Is there a man out there who hasn't said that they'd never hit a woman? Oh really? Have you ever been emotionally tied to a woman who pressed all your buttons and you couldn't take yourself out of the situation? You can avoid the truth, but, you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding the truth.
The fact is that most women have less understanding of violence, because, they were not involved in violent play as children or violent confrontations in teen/young adult ages. Young men are constantly aware of the threat of violence and learn to respect it (Punch-in-the-nose-theory).
Now, I think that most of the movement against domestic violence has positive effects. I think true abuse is on the decline and is less tolerated now. It needs to be talked about and understood. I just think that people need to remember the ugly truths about human nature and not try to pretend that everything can be solved by just wishing human nature to get nicer.
In fact, it was a good old fashioned beatdown, with Rhianna not even able to throw a punch back his way.
Well, someone usually wins a fight. Chris Brown isn't an animal on the mere fact that he can hand out a whooping.
In the end I go by the injuries. Brown is assuredly an asshole as beating any person like that makes him one. But he gave her a few bruises and black eyes - just like a standard bar fight.
Answer: They want him to have his testicles physically removed from his body on live television and placed in a jar thus attaining the highest form of enlightenment possible for a man.
As crazy as it sounds, you might actually not be exaggerating that much. At the very least, I think a majority of feminists believe the death penalty is appropriate punishment for serious domestic abuse.
General comment regarding feminist motivation: I really have to come up with a law about minorities normalizing their behavior. I've written about it so much that I need a full post on the matter.
I can't believe you're defending a n***er thug like Chris Brown
@Cul-De-Sac Hero
That was epic.
I can't believe you're defending a n***er thug like Chris Brown
Other than lashing out at his girlfriend (probably after much provocation seeing as this was a black woman), what's he done that marks him out as a thug? Is any teenage male who's driven to his very limits by some harpy now branded a 'thug-4-lyfe'?
I think One is being very fair and objective with this issue.
"Brown is assuredly an asshole as beating any person like that makes him one. But he gave her a few bruises and black eyes - just like a standard bar fight."
When Carter Strange was assaulted you seemed to think that was a big deal. It's almost like you're some kind of hypocrite!
When Carter Strange was assaulted you seemed to think that was a big deal. It's almost like you're some kind of hypocrite!
Carter Strange was randomly jumped by a random pack of feral animals who he did not know. He was 100% innocent. He also sustained far worse injuries than Rihanna did.
Rihanna was "beaten" by her boyfriend who she engaged in a very heated domestic dispute. She very likely struck him first in a very volatile situation. While her injuries were bad, they weren't anywhere near those of Carter Strange.
But that's not even really the issue: Rihanna willfully engaged in a heated situation with someone she knew intimately. Carter Strange was walking home and got jumped by random strangers for being white.
That I have to explain the distinction to you is unbelievable.
That you've convinced yourself there's a distinction is sad.
That you've convinced yourself there's a distinction is sad.
There's no distinction between getting gang-attacked by complete strangers and getting into a very heated argument with a close acquaintance that turns physical?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Well it's official: Dave is fucking crazy.
I guess just to further explain why it's not okay to use violence against someone because you're in an "argument:"
Let's say that I am much stronger than you. I can yell at you, call you names, insult you -- but once you do any of the following back to me, we're now in a "heated discussion" and, according to One, I can now use as much violence against you as I wish.
"There's no distinction between getting gang-attacked by complete strangers and getting into a very heated argument with a close acquaintance that turns physical?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?"
There's no moral distinction between using violence against a stranger you don't know, and a loved one that you're angry at. Beating people who aren't fighting back is wrong.
And let's put the "distinction" you're making in proper context. Chris Brown's assault of Rihanna is basically nothing to you, while Carter Strange's assault was the most evil thing you could imagine.
You're not merely categorizing two different types of violence, you're placing them on opposite ends of the moral spectrum.
Dave,
Are you really this stupid?
Trying to put this in a rule context for you: everyone is allowed to whip any of their friends / lovers asses once (each).
At that point the whip-ee has to ask themselves: "Did I provoke that or he a crazy fucker?". If she concludes that she provoked him she can decide to either control herself and avoid provoking him, or avoid him (because she can't stop herself from pushing his buttons). If she concludes that the other person is a crazy fucker then she should avoid that person. The thing about getting your ass whipped by your lover is that you really need to be hanging around them for it to happen.
Everyone alive agrees that if a woman cuts off contact with a guy and the guy seeks her out to whip her ass that it's criminal behavior.
On the other hand, if you get your ass whipped by a bunch of strangers while walking down the street what can you conclude? That it's not safe to be out in public?
The consequences of the first scenario are that women who like violent thugs might get an ass whipping every once in a while.
The consequences of the second are that the streets are controlled by violent thugs and people are better off avoiding "civilization".
There's a huge difference between getting your ass kicked in a boxing ring because you choose to box as a hobby and getting beaten near to death because you've trespassed on an informal racial militia's territory. If you can't see that you're either stupid or willfully blind because you like that there are racial militias that control territory (as long as they aren't the wrong race racial militias, right?).
"Trying to put this in a rule context for you: everyone is allowed to whip any of their friends / lovers asses once (each)."
No.
"If you can't see that you're either stupid or willfully blind because you like that there are racial militias that control territory (as long as they aren't the wrong race racial militias, right?)."
Steve, I don't condone what happened to Carter Strange. I know it's fun adventure time for you to pretend that I do, and that you cannot bear the idea that I actually find what happened to him pretty chilling, since I'd like to feel safe on the streets as well.
However, you do condone the violence that happened to Rihanna.
I've been consistent. You're the hypocrite. And an overrated wide receiver.
"I've been consistent. You're the hypocrite."
You consistently condemn something that isn't really a big deal (as evidenced by the fact that no one involved seems to really care that it happened) and something that is tremendously damaging to society.
In other words, you don't condemn the actual damaging and dangerous act at all.
I did so condemn Carter Strange's beating! I said it was as bad as jay walking!
Them getting back together means that she's either decided that she's ok with getting her ass whipped randomly once in a while or that there is such a thing as provocation and that she indulged in it - and she'll either not provoke him in the future or accept a deserved (in her own eyes) ass whipping.
So yes, I do fully condone what happened to Rihanna. If she condones it why shouldn't I? Consenting adults and all that, right? That is the entirety of your moral code, right?
If Carter Strange had walked up to a group of blacks and started calling them "niggers," and then got stomped, THAT would have been equivalent to Brown/Rhianna.
I'm pretty old-school on this: I was taught at a young age that men don't hit women, period. We're bigger and stronger -- in most cases by a large margin -- and it's just not done.
Since getting older and taking the red pill, I've come to understand that many of the things discussed here are true. Women are attracted to men with an edge, who seem potentially violent. Many women get turned on by a slap from a Sean Connery-type alpha (a very different thing from a domestic abuse situation where a woman fears and even loathes her man but is so mentally twisted that she sees his abuse as emotional investment, and can't imagine a relationship without it). Many women in an unhappy relationship will goad the guy with every tool possible to try to get him to lash out so she can use his guilt against him. Women aren't inherently virtuous princesses on pedestals who never deserve bad things to happen to them; they're just as low and cunning as men, if not more so, going all the way back to Eve. I get all that.
But I guess I can't help my upbringing; I still think any man who punches a woman needs to be beaten bloody, and humiliated to boot. If I see a man hit a woman, I'm not going to ask whether she deserved it; I'm going to knock him down. Rihanna may deserve a beating, but that doesn't mean it's right for Brown to give her one. There are better, more alpha, more masculine ways to handle a woman who's acting unacceptably, including just walking away. Save the fists for fighting with other men.
Dave,
You are way out in left field with your opinion. I doubt many people would agree with you.
violence only becomes abuse in a woman's mind when the make-up sex and apologies stop
"Actually CH is smart enough to know the difference. I think women get turned on by a lot of things that aren't really appropriate. That is different then what they would consider ideal."
fantasies are a reflection of real world desire. else, we would hear of women having equal numbers of fantasies of doting betas who write them poetry and listen to their woes.
and yet we don't. at all. that should tell you something.
If I see a man hit a woman, I'm not going to ask whether she deserved it; I'm going to knock him down.
The abused woman would then join her partner in trying to knock YOU down. Don't be a white knight who has to learn this the hard way.
PA, do you have a blog?
"But I guess I can't help my upbringing; I still think any man who punches a woman needs to be beaten bloody, and humiliated to boot. If I see a man hit a woman, I'm not going to ask whether she deserved it; I'm going to knock him down. Rihanna may deserve a beating, but that doesn't mean it's right for Brown to give her one. There are better, more alpha, more masculine ways to handle a woman who's acting unacceptably, including just walking away. Save the fists for fighting with other men."
Fair enough, but in this day and age, I think women have forfeited any special rights they may have had in more traditional times. They compete with us in the job market but still send us to war to protect them. Let them call the cops. If they won't be damsels, let chivalry die.
Other than lashing out at his girlfriend (probably after much provocation seeing as this was a black woman), what's he done that marks him out as a thug? Is any teenage male who's driven to his very limits by some harpy now branded a 'thug-4-lyfe'?
I think One is being very fair and objective with this issue.
Considering his race I don't think it took too much provocation to set off the savage attack. I don't consider Rhianna your typical negress either, I mean she has green eyes.
Posts like this just perpetuate the stereotypes that we're all a bunch of neckbeards who hate women because of our lack of success with them.
Posts like this just perpetuate the stereotypes that we're all a bunch of neckbeards who hate women because of our lack of success with them.
Are you?
Considering his race I don't think it took too much provocation to set off the savage attack.
As One pointed out, this was hardly a 'savage attack.' Btw, how does your statement above paint us in any better light than mine does?
@Steve Johnson
"I did so condemn Carter Strange's beating! I said it was as bad as jay walking!"
Congratulations on being predictable. Anyway, I think what happened to Strange was wrong, and I think what happened to Rihanna was wrong. Because, unlike you, I'm not a hypocrite.
"If she condones it why shouldn't I? "
For starters, she didn't condone it.
@Lara
"Dave,
You are way out in left field with your opinion. I doubt many people would agree with you."
No, I'm certainly in center field. But is believing that most people agree with you what gives you the courage to speak your mind? Cause I wouldn't want to take away your magic feather.
@PA
"If Carter Strange had walked up to a group of blacks and started calling them "niggers," and then got stomped, THAT would have been equivalent to Brown/Rhianna."
What do you think Rihanna did that's equivalent to that level of senseless provocation?
I'm not sure how everyone on this blog arrived at the certainty that Rihanna harassed Chris Brown until he had no choice but to lash out.
@SFG
"Fair enough, but in this day and age, I think women have forfeited any special rights they may have had in more traditional times."
It's not "special rights." It's wrong to beat on someone who can't or won't fight back, regardless of their gender.
That's why One's comparison of this to a "bar fight" is so sickening. In a bar fight, you risk getting hit back. To beat on someone who's helpless is very different.
@anonymous
"As One pointed out, this was hardly a 'savage attack.'"
Reportedly, there were bite marks. Where exactly do you set the bar?
I do believe a man can legitimately strike a woman in self-defense if absolutely necessary, but he beat her up pretty badly. Unless he thought she might go for a knife or a gun, it clearly went well beyond self-defense even if she struck the first blow (and Cul-de-Sac Hero seems to believe that even that is not necessary).
Also not sure why more than one post says Rihanna took Brown back. It was rumored at the time, but did it ever actually happen? I was under the impression it proved only a rumor.
I don't consider Rhianna your typical negress either, I mean she has green eyes.
You clearly have never seen her videos, pics, and behavior over the past 4 or 5 years.
She has "thug lyfe" tattooed across her knuckles. I rest my case.
The abused woman would then join her partner in trying to knock YOU down. Don't be a white knight who has to learn this the hard way.
Yes. Last year I read about a white knight being killed in one of these beatings and the woman backing up her abusive bf.
Also not sure why more than one post says Rihanna took Brown back. It was rumored at the time, but did it ever actually happen? I was under the impression it proved only a rumor.
They were "hooking up" again last month.
As One pointed out, this was hardly a 'savage attack.' Btw, how does your statement above paint us in any better light than mine does
sorry I didn't mean your comment, I meant One's original post defending Chris Brown.
I can't believe I just read all these comments. All that analysis, of what amounted to common or garden TNB.
Post a Comment