The Latest Salvo From the Feminist Enemy

I don’t know what it is with radical feminists. They just seem to get nuttier and nuttier.

Denise Romano, M.A., Applied Lunacy, M.A. Advanced Feminist Batshittery, is out of control. Not satisfied trying to redefine seduction as rape, she is now apparently trying to have Roissy in DC arrested! For what, pray tell? For inciting physical and sexual assaults against women, which, according to Denise, is illegal. I doubt if it is. You can incite just about anything in the US from a blog or wherever. A few like Tom Metzger have gone down civilly, but no one ever goes down criminally. It’s not possible. Only in Feminazi Fantasy Land.

This points up another disturbing point about Female Rule which I touched on earlier. Females have always been censors. Males tend to be civil libertarians. A society based on Female Rule will not be a civil libertarian one, because at their core, most females simply do not believe in basic civil liberties.

They love to censor and ban speech, especially hate speech (whatever that is), pornography and God knows what else. Females are just natural born censors; that’s all there is to it. Which is one more reason that Female Rule must be opposed with all of our might.

Crazy feminazis like Denise Romano claim that any sex with a “drugged or drunk” female is rape. Well, maybe so, but maybe one guy in 500 billion cases goes down on this charge, if that. In general, all of these charges are laughed out of court, when they are even filed. Women “raped” in this way never even bother to file.

Truth is, lots of women like to drink. Plenty of women are heavy drinkers, and many of those are alcoholics. It’s reasonable to assume that many bar-hopping, heavy drinking and alcoholic women can never consent to sex, since they are probably loaded most of the time they are in bed.

Many females nowadays like to take drugs, especially cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. Ecstacy, LSD and other hallucinogens are very popular. Quite a few women use heroin. Female users of all of these drugs very commonly have sex when they are flying on this or that illicit substance. Many find this drugged sex experience quite rewarding. I’ve never in my life heard of a guy going down on rape for having sex with a stoned female.

Recently, the UK, which has recently started to come under some serious Female Rule, has decided that any sex with any “drunk” female is rape. There have been a few charges here and there, but most have been laughed out of court, as should be the case. In one recent case, a judge said that just because a woman was drunk, it doesn’t mean she was raped. Well, of course.

Now it’s another thing to see some chick who is falling down drunk at a bar or a party and hone in on her and take advantage of her just because she is wasted. That’s a dishonorable thing to do for any man.

If she’s so wasted she is on the verge of passing out, why are you targeting her? To get laid? Sleazy.

I must say, I’ve never been seduced in my life. I’ve been drunk off my ass more times than I can count, and I’ve been blasted out of my skull on just about every drug known to mankind more times than I can count.

Plenty of women have made plays for me when I was totalled, and a lot of the time I said no. Sometimes I agreed, but it was something I wanted to do at the time. I had buyer’s remorse in the morning, but that’s not a crime on her part. Gay men have made plays for me many times too, often when I was pretty wasted. Of course I never let them seduce me. Why are women so stupid that they allow themselves, like children, to be seduced?

Denise and Raine complain that PUA is teaching men how to hypnotize and brainwash women into sleeping with guys. They say this is rape. No it isn’t. It’s seduction. I’ve been trying to brainwash and hypnotize women and girls my whole life into getting sexual with me, although I never thought of it that way before. “Hypnotism” and “brainwashing” is just Seduction 101, always has been. What of it?

I’ll make you an offer. Any woman I find unattractive or even any man can try to brainwash me or hypnotize me all they want to to try to get me into bed. It’s not going to work, especially for the guys. No guy can use mentalism to get me into bed, and if I don’t like the woman, it’s going to be hard for her too.

I’m having a hard time understanding the feminist hysteria about rape.

I’ve been beaten over the head with a baseball bat so bad I had to go to the neurology ward.

I got my lights punched out repeatedly.

I got jumped and pummeled by five guys in a nightclub.

I got assaulted at a party, fought back, picked the guy up and threw him onto a table, smashing the table to bits.

After a party, another vehicle accused me of cutting them off. They chased us in their car, drunk, throwing loaded cans of beer at us. Somehow they cornered us on a street and I was lugging the gears. They were out of their car and attacking us on foot, kicking the car, beating it with their fists, trying to pull the doors open. If they would have gotten the doors open, we would have been seriously beaten or maybe even killed.

I finally put the car in first gear and floored it. A maniac was running headlong at my car from the side. “Watch out!” my friend yelled. I didn’t care. I floored it. The car hit the guy and he went flying like in the movies, maybe 5-10 feet. I hit him with my car. On purpose. I don’t know if I killed him, but I hope I did.

This is normal Growing Up 101 for guys. How many guys have been pummeled, robbed, mugged, assaulted, etc in their lifetimes? Most of us. Is rape really worse than this? Why? Prove that it’s worse than the typical life-threatening or life-terrorizing beatings, attacks and tortures many or most of us males experienced when we were young men.

Even more, I’ve been raped (or sexually assaulted), by feminist definitions. I picked up a sociopathic hitchhiker, he commandeered my vehicle, tried to destroy the engine, sexually fondled me, pummeled me and poured beer over me, all while I was driving on a freeway. I was a psychological wreck for 3 1/2 weeks, then I said, “Screw it, I’m moving on.” Isn’t that as bad as what a lot of female rape victims experienced? Was what they experienced worse? Why? Prove it.

Hey, come on. Life’s tough for everyone. Women get raped. So do some guys. And lots of guys get kidnapped, pummeled, gang-beaten, beaten with objects, often over the head, robbed, mugged, threatened with death and, by the cops, arrested, brutalized, beaten, threatened with death and imprisoned in the Hell of incarceration, on and on. Who says females have a Pain Monopoly anyway?

No one gets out of this shit called life unscathed. No one. Females have not patented Victim Status.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

9 thoughts on “The Latest Salvo From the Feminist Enemy”

  1. some guys. And lots of guys get kidnapped, pummeled, gang-beaten, beaten with objects, often over the head, robbed, mugged, threatened with death, on and on.

    They do? Do tell…

    1. Yep, most guys do, as young men, and I’m a White man. I’ve had all those things happen to me and I’m a nice White boy from the suburbs. It’s part of coming of age as a man. You get the shit beat out of you by other guys. Repeatedly. Kind of like being raped, you know? Boo hoo.

  2. Robert,

    It is plainly obvious the Raine-Romano duette is two extremely narcissistic ‘women’ who have a lot of personal anger against men that is motivating their ‘crusade’.

    I think that in both cases it is really a question of them feeling that they both are not getting the attention from the type and quality of man that they think they both ‘deserve’ — or are entitled to.

    In lady ‘vain’s’ case, she thinks cause she is so aggressive and bitchy that men are supposed to fing this behavior ‘alluring’ or something (LOL) – cause you know, since she as the good egalitarian thinks men and women’s brains are ‘exactly the same’, and since women are attracted to aggressive guys — why can’t guys then be attracted to ‘aggressive’ women?!?

    In Romano’s case, she probably fancies herself as some sort of intellectual paragon — hence (like lady vain) she as well has said that “men and women’s brains are ‘exactly the same”, and since women are attracted to professional and academically accomplished men — why can’t guys then be attracted to a ‘professional’ women?!?

    Of course, their deluded minds cannot see, and more importantly accept the fact that a woman’s primary attraction for a man is based on youth, fertility AND, most especially, physical beauty.

    These two have sqandered all this away (what little they actually possessed) in their younger years acting like their egotistical behaviors had no long-term consequences… with one stripping and ‘slutting it up’ — and the other just thinking that competing with men professionally was supposed to ‘entitle’ her to a man ‘out of her league’ (yes Virginia – women have leagues too).

    1. To simplify on the intra-psychological motives of these types of women — you know…

      – the “I am Woman — Hear Me Whore” type (Raine)

      – or the “I am Woman — Hear Me Bore” type (Romano)

      These are the two most prominent kinds of ‘women’ more likely to join movements that undermine the traditional West (and with it, traditional relationships) and inflate their self-worth like feminism.

      They want to get revenge on all the so-called “alphas” – i.e. all the desirable men in their life that ignored (or used) them, and this is the best way for them to do that.

      There is a reason why many women in ‘movement feminism’ are so, to put it nicely, ‘aesthetically-challenged’ and/or possess such abrasive and unfeminine personalities.

  3. Crazy feminazis like Denise Romano and Lady Raine claim that any sex with a “drugged or drunk” female is rape. Well, maybe so, but maybe one guy in 500 billion cases goes down on this charge, if that. In general, all of these charges are laughed out of court, when they are even filed. Women “raped” in this way never even bother to file.

    Not that you care about anything that I actually believe or have said, but I personally do NOT believe that a woman choosing to be high on drugs or being drunk and then saying “yes” is rape.

    I don’t think that a person should be expected to “guess” how drunk/high a woman is and then also “guess” if her saying “yes” was an actual yes.

    HOWEVER…..slipping her drugs or having sex without verbal consent (ie: drunk girl passed out) is definitely rape.

    So if you want to speak of what I believe, Denise has some very differing views on many subjects than I do and here you have posted something that is entirely untrue about my beliefs.

    1. Thx for the correction Lady. The article was modified to represent your actual views. I have a degree in journalism and I believe in journalistic integrity.

      I happen to agree with your view of rape. Slipping a woman drugs and having sex with a passed woman is indeed rape. The rest of it is not. I’m happy to see that we share a sane view on the subject.

  4. That’s interesting. They had multiple opportunities to disavow that view of rape in the discussions here, and they didn’t. I specifically addressed them from that assumption, and they didn’t say that wasn’t their POV. Backtracking?

  5. Thx for the correction Lady. The article was modified to represent your actual views. I have a degree in journalism and I believe in journalistic integrity.

    I happen to agree with your view of rape. Slipping a woman drugs and having sex with a passed woman is indeed rape. The rest of it is not. I’m happy to see that we share a sane view on the subject.

    I understand that you are attempting to pick apart two different women’s views (Denise and I) and address them at the same time, but I appreciate the correction because my views do not mimic Denise’s on everything and vice versa.

    She and I are literally polar opposites (Denise a Liberal with Jewish and Roman Catholic influence, me FAR from Liberal and raised by Protestant Lutherans) and we just happen to have similar views on PUA’s but the HEART of what bothers us is what we agree on.

    The reason my views on a woman CHOOSING to take drugs, CHOOSING to drink, etc. and then say “yes” is because in my opinion, that woman had a CHOICE. She is an adult. She should be responsible for her actions. She was given a reasonable amount of “information” to make her decision (to take drugs and then consent to sex)….etc.

    HOWEVER. The reason I consider some of the PUA techniques that are more aggressive and coercive (like “last minute resistance” and “anti slut defense” and the isolation/intimidation methods) to be aggravating to legal consent is because in THOSE cases, the woman is NOT given “reasonable information” to make her decision. To make a an adult choice.

    Much like the difference between stupidly not checking the facts on a car and buying it (buyer’s problem, oh well) or being intentionally defrauded and having information WITHHELD from you with the intention to trick you into buying the car (Lemon Law–NOT buyer’s fault).

    I see PUA’s as the “Lemon Law” of the very legal “Used Car Salesmen” world.

    There are tons of men (and women) who manipulate, lie, deceive, etc in dating and relationships and it isn’t right…..but it also isn’t necessarily intended to harm or defraud the other person. Sometimes people just make asshole decisions.

    However, a PUA is essentially going in with a TARGET in mind, a handbook of “Fraud”, and is going to do everything in their power to make sure they WITHHOLD or even obfuscate any and all “truth” and information that would prevent the woman from saying “Yes” or giving consent.

    That is not (imo) a woman being given reasonable info…..and disregarding it, making a bad *sexual* decision.

    That is asking a woman to be a mind-reader, to carry a Polygraph around with her, and assume that whatever the PUA says (even though she doesn’t know he IS one) …..that the truth is the opposite?

    That’s like saying if a woman has a handbook on “stealing sperm”…..goes in with the malicious intent to steal your sperm, uses techniques to do it, lies to you to get you to have sex with her, then runs off with your sperm (resource)……she has Defrauded you and Sexually Assaulted you as well.

    Would you say that the MAN shouldn’t have been “dumb enough” to fall for her elaborate plan? That he should have KNOWN that a “sperm stealer with a handbook” was out looking for prey that night?

    No, of course not. She’s a con-artist and deserves to be charged as the Criminal she is. That man didn’t have “choices” because she made sure he had access to only the Fraudulent info she gave him. How could he make an informed decision and thus give informed consent in that case?

    That is where my “issue” with PUA Techniques lie. When you go in with “Intent to Defraud” and a Game plan…..you are not just “dating” and showing your best self…..you are seeking a victim and calculating your crime.

    That’s the clear-cut difference that I see and I’d see it whether it involved sex or something else. I feel the same about women who are intentional gold-diggers and the rare “sperm-stealer”.

    It’s just as bad, it’s Fraud, and it IS and should be a crime.

    Just thought I’d clarify my stance. I’m more prone to think that these men should be prosecuted with Fraud as the “major crime” and the sexual crime as secondary…..maybe “attempted sexual assault”, sexual abuse, or just simple assault….however I do think on the personal level that a man who is willing to do all that to steal sex IS a man who is guilty of crossing the “rape” line.

    Denise has to speak for herself, but I think her view of Rape has to be more “broad” because of her Profession.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *