What people really mean when they say there is a lot of rape

Official, politically correct truth, is that there is a whole lot of rape, and very few rape convictions, and when women claim to have been raped, it is always true.

Now of course the poster girl law applies.  If there was a whole lot of unpunished rape, or if most rape accusations were true, or even if more than a tiny proportion were true, then when Rolling Stone and suchlike go looking for a poster girl, they would be able to find one that did not blow up in their faces.

On casual observation and common sense very few rape accusations are true, the overwhelming majority of rape convictions are false and unjust, and the courts exhibit guilty conscience in convicting obviously innocent men, and then frequently sentencing them to sexual assault awareness class, time served, and suchlike.  Obviously people do not really believe that many rape accusations, or even many rape convictions, are true in the ordinary sense of logic and facts.  Rather it is an emotional truth.
“Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”

People believe that many rape accusations are true, that many rape convictions are just, the way they believe in Santa Claus.

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN it’s so.’
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Recently my wife died, after a long and terrible illness. She was always a good wife, she gave me two good sons, and we were together since we were teenagers. My sisters came to visit me for the funeral. I have not seen them for a long time.

After the funeral my oldest sister, recently widowed, and a good wife all her years to the best of my knowledge, told a story of how she and a bunch of other politically active women had investigated a girls religious school for pedophilia, and found and presented a pile of evidence that obviously no one else found the slightest bit convincing, and I am pretty sure my elder sister did not find convincing either. I was disturbed, and argued that she was overdoing it, creating a danger than innocent people would be unjustly impugned, that if they could find nothing substantial, should have let sleeping dogs lie. And in the course of this quite civilized conversation I casually said “The vast majority of rape accusations are false, the vast majority of rape convictions are false”. My tone of voice, and my honest expectation, was that we were all family, we don’t need to pretend, no one is going to overhear us, so we can get away with acknowledging the glaringly obvious. My work is not really due to the inspiration provided by Comrade Stalin, and there is not really much rape, or at least not much rape by white heterosexual males.

My sisters were outraged. They exploded. I could not get a word in edgewise. They spewed forth a torrent of condemnation and rebuttal. In particular and especially my divorced sister who was especially loud and spoke especially fast, and not very coherently.

She proceeded to passionately and very loudly describe various recent rape convictions, which were, she told me, clearly and overwhelmingly right and just.

Her evidence that these rape convictions were real strikingly resembled the SUN’s evidence that Santa Claus exists:

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.

I have no idea what really happened in these alleged rapes. But I know what my sister told me happened. According to her:

“They expected to be loved and cherished, they expected to be treated kindly. But instead …”

But instead really really terrible things were done to them.

According to her, it was all regret “rape”. The girls consented, then regretted consenting but the girls were not regretting trivially or foolishly. According to her the girls had really good reasons for regret, up to and including serious physical injury. Really really good reasons.

My divorced sister also has lots of good reasons for regretting some of her sexual choices. I don’t know if any of them are as good as the reasons she attributes to these girls and these convictions, but they are good reasons. Which may explain her passion on the topic and her somewhat surprising choice and depiction of what constitutes genuine rape.

Women reliably and very predictably make disastrous sexual choices that cause immense harm to themselves and to everyone around them. So when they say they believe complainant X, even when, as with Jackie Coakley and Crystal Mangum, it is glaringly obvious that the complainant is making stuff up, what they actually mean is that complainant X is suffering real and genuine pain as a result of her choices to have sex or to refuse to have sex. For example, Jackie Coakley suffered great and real pain as a result of having casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly offering to have more casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly hatching overly complicated and excessively clever plots to manipulate Ryan Duffin into giving her another quickie, and Ryan Duffin repeatedly being too busy to get around to giving her any more quickies.

The current free-for-all sexual jungle just chews women up and spits them out. It breaks them. It makes them into trash, into garbage, into filth, into scum. It makes them into women who cannot stand the thought of being touched by any man who would be likely to marry them, or even hang around with them for very long. If Jackie Coakley manages to marry someone, she will probably find it mighty hard to fuck him. This is a major factor in our population collapse. Wives just not being able to stand fucking their husbands. And since fertile age women have to have sex …

And that is what women mean when they say that most rape complaints are real, that most rape convictions are just. Like Santa Claus, it is an emotional truth, not seriously intended to be a factual truth. Virginia will not be able to see an actual Santa Claus coming down the chimney, and the SUN is not really saying that she will be able to. Men are convicted because women suffer, not because anyone really thinks that those particular men personally did anything in particular to cause the suffering of those particular women. Phi Beta Kappa and its members are still under various punishments and persecution even though the original rationale (their supposed rape of Jackie Coakley) has collapsed, new and ever more improbable rationales appear to fill the gap to justify the partial continuation of various measures originally applied to the fraternity to punish the rape of Jackie Coakley – though the original measures were mild enough as to reveal that no one had ever actually believed that the fraternity had been complicit in actual rape type rape.

Sullivan announced a new contract between the university and fraternities that includes enhanced safety measures for social activities designed to discourage binge drinking. The university said that Phi Psi was the first fraternity to sign the updated agreement, and fraternity officials said that Phi Psi members have participated in a sexual assault awareness program.

“We believe that in the midst of this ordeal, there is an opportunity for good,” Scipione said. “This has prompted us to take a closer look at ourselves and what role organizations like ours may play in ensuring student safety.”

A sexual assault awareness program, in the absence of any actual sexual assault, is just punishment, humiliation, and degradation. If you actually thought someone committed sexual assault, or was likely to, you would deploy something more forceful than a sexual assault awareness program. The purpose is brainwashing, to convince the innocent that they are guilty. to punish them for failure to comply with the narrative, for their disgraceful and shocking failure to be actually individually and personally responsible for the bad feelings and bad consequences that women suffer as a result of their bad sexual choices. The point of sexual assault awareness course is to re-arrange reality so that men are at fault for the bad decisions that women make, to punish Phi Beta Kappa and its members for Jackie Coakley’s self destructive decision to fuck Ryan Duffin.

Supposedly believing the story to be real, the actions of the authorities were not nearly drastic enough for people who supposedly believed. Knowing the story to be completely false, their actions are far too drastic for people who disbelieve. The leniency of the initial punishment revealed the authorities’ guilty knowledge that almost all rape accusations are false, the severity of the final punishment revealed the guilty intention to punish innocent men for the grave and terrible wrongs that women so frequently and predictably do to themselves.

It would greatly improve Jackie Coakley’s prospects of marrying and her ability to be a good wife if she was publicly caned for fucking Ryan Duffin, because caning and public degradation would render the man who was willing to marry her more alpha in her eyes. It would relieve the psychological problems caused by her bad sexual choices. This is what girls who cut themselves are trying, and failing, to achieve. Women who do bad sexual things want men to punish them. Jackie Coakley’s rape story was a sexual fantasy of receiving a well deserved punishment from high status males.

Consent based morality is based on the idea that we make rational choices. If two men agree to exchange iron for wheat, the exchange must be in the interests of both of them, it must make them both better off, or else they would not agree. But sexual consent in fertile age woman is based on raging hormones, on volcanically powerful and entirely irrational forces, thus women make terrible sexual choices that are very much against their interests. For this reason, sexual consent is not sufficient to make sex right, nor lack of sexual consent sufficient to make sex wrong.

We have an army of too clever by half intellectuals thinking up clever stories why the government and society should intervene in people’s economic choices, even though even the stupidist man will generally be careful with his own money, yet everyone thinks that female consent is necessary and sufficient to make sex right, even though everyone sees women making terrible choices, and regretting those choices.

Emancipating women, allowing them to choose who to sleep with and who not to sleep with, is like setting ten year old children loose in the jungle to live by hunting bears. When menarche hits, women become less capable of consenting competently, not more capable. The age of consent should be menopause. Women should not be allowed to consent to sex except under male supervision.

Women despise men who treat them well, hence the effectiveness of negs and preselection. I should know. I am an asshole. Ask my sisters.

All woman respond to PUA tactics. Look around you. A woman will only be happy if she is virtuous, and will only be virtuous if she is bagged by a good man who keeps her and restrains her inherently wicked impulses. Women reward playful cruelty and cheerful selfishness.

Women do not reward kindness. If they choose to submit to a kind man, that is their good luck, not their good judgement.

Consider how much better off Kate Gosselin would be had she not been allowed to speak back to her husband, nor refuse to sleep with him, nor to sleep with anyone else.

96 Responses to “What people really mean when they say there is a lot of rape”

  1. Joe says:

    My condolences on the loss of your wife. Judging from that pic of the two of you that you posted a while back, she was a beauty as well as a good wife. God Bless her.

  2. Korth says:

    I’m really sorry for your loss, Jim.

  3. Toddy Cat says:

    May God’s eternal light shine upon her.

  4. Eli says:

    My condolences.

  5. Henry12 says:

    RIP Jim’s wife.

  6. My condolences.

    My take on rape is guys will force women when they expect to get away with it,
    (husbands in India, soldiers whose commander is allowing it, Muslims in parts of PC England, Powerful Illuminati members)
    but men are perfectly capable of keeping a lid on it in the face of likely disproportionate punishment, which has been the situation in the US my whole life. In the US, the only guys who could reasonably expect to not be severely punished if accused, were guys who were seriously politically connected. Meanwhile a population of gals will generate false accusations at a reasonably high rate in an environment where they are virtually never punished for it. So as a result, in the US, virtually every accusation of a known alleged attacker, at least all the ones you ever see in the media, is false.

    • peppermint says:

      Colorblind. Mud “people” commit stranger rape and gang rape. ((Politically connected)) FUCKING WHITE MALEs like Bill Clinton and David Cameron occasionally rape ((pigs)) because the ((media)) tells them that’s what they want to do.

      • Hidden Author says:

        The Jews made the ancient Greeks and Romans ravage captive women…gotcha!

        • peppermint says:

          » conflating stranger rape with the vastly overblown claims of Whites committing rape in war, or the regrettable and rare practice of capturing multiple foreign women and using them for sex

          In fact, White soldiers would often and still do take a single foreign woman home with them, and used to but no longer hang niggers who are inexplicably in their armies for the predictable rapes.

          In fact, when the White Russian army went through Germany, they would tell Germans to hide their women from the second wave of Jew-led rapists.

          In fact, ((Eisenhower)) orchestrated mass rapes of German women by niggers.

          Rape and abuse of women is totally foreign to the Aryan psyche. Only the most degenerate criminals of our race, and more frequently members of a degenerate criminal race masquerading as us, would even think of it.

          Occasionally, Egyptian monarchs and White slaveowners in the US would miscegenate. This was much more rare that suggested by niggerloving christcucks, but over time it did lead to the downfall of Egypt and would eventually have led to the downfall of America.

        • jim says:

          “ravage captive women” is PC fantasy. Whenever there is something that feels like conquest to women, they line up to be ravaged. Whenever an individual or group is in a position to openly and legally command women to submit to sex, when it is failure to submit that is deemed illegal, women are keen on it. It is the conquered men that are unhappy with the arrangement, not the conquered women.

            • jim says:

              This photo is more fiction in the warrior princess genre.

              Women in military uniform exist only for feminist photo ops, not for actual combat, or even actual military training.

              Should they be actually put on the front line, they would shortly be screwing the enemy like dogs in heat. The psychosocial stimuli that cause men to develop group loyalty, identify with their group, and cause men to fight, cause women to identify with the other, and cause women to fuck.

              Forming fighting groups is innate in males. Under stimuli that cause men to cohere and act collectively to fight the enemy, the same stimuli cause women to act individually to fuck the enemy.

              That which makes men fight, makes women fuck.

          • peppermint says:

            » mudslimes propagate islam through rape
            » mudslimes are caucasoid
            » Whites are caucasoid
            » therefore Whites do rape on conquered peoples

            this is why we call ourselves White, not caucasian, and call and them sand niggers, to emphasize the fact that they are composed of a mixture of human and nigger DNA. Incidentally, kikes also have nontrivial amounts of nigger.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Why the fuck did you censor me? Did you not like it that I refuted your and peppermint’s position?

            • jim says:

              I censored you for being boring, stupid, inane, and untruthful.

              Try making the same point without lying or being deliberately stupid. It will not get censored. I don’t censor facts, I don’t censor arguments. I do censor wasting the reader’s time with stupid lies.

              Disagreement is welcome. Boring inane idiocy is not welcome.

              It is a quality control issue. You can rebut people with rebuttles, but not by vomiting garbage over the thread.

              It is possible you intended to be ironic, rather than stupid and dishonest. Hard to do irony over the internet. If that is what you were trying, you failed. Try saying whatever it was you meant to say without using irony.

          • peppermint says:

            Superior women often refuse the advances of inferior men, just ask OKCupid.

            There was this chick that was trying to get me in her for a while, she ended up hooking up with this dark-skinned Indian because the only Whites who would tell her she was in a relationship she didn’t respect, he always looked at me with terror because he knew what she really wanted, she ended up “marrying” a White guy, they’ve been married for a while idk when she’s finally going to decide to let him knock her up.

            There was this other chick that was really interested in me, I was negging her by suggesting that she was into the nigger sitting next to her (I was blue pill then), she was polite but didn’t show any interest in the nigger, which was annoyed about the whole situation.

            Oh, and the Yazidi sex slaves that refused to sex their ISIS sand nigger beta boys got set on fire lol.

            HOWEVER

            in 1980 Ronald Reagan switched from gathering statistics on race of child to race of mother. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf

            3/4 mothers in 2013 were White, sand nigger, or curry nigger. Every year since 2010 we are told that White babies are a minority, partly to gaslight the normies into accepting being second class citizens.

            So, while most White women aren’t actually succumbing to the propaganda that muds are superior, White women aren’t having White kids, due to such factors as feminism and lack of jobs for Whites, while they are having mud sprogs, due to such factors are easy welfare, cushy affirmative action jobs for muds, and not only no feminism but the expectation of carrying mud children.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So it’s untruthful to say that Achilles and Agamemnon argued over a sex slave? [Stop being intentionally stupid. Rest of your message deleted for similar intentional or natural stupidity which wastes reader bandwidth.]

          • Hidden Author says:

            And yet the YPJ women in Kobani didn’t screw the ISIS jihadis who invaded their city and who would have won if Erdogan had succeeded in getting Obama to distance himself from the Kurds (in fact Erdogan still had his troops lay siege to Kobani from the north while ISIS besieged Kobani in the other directions of the compass!).

          • Hidden Author says:

            With that said, I acknowledge that there is media manipulation behind the YPJ. It isn’t a coincidence that all the YPJ personnel shown in the media are hot–that, at least, is an obvious PR ploy. Indeed, considering how feminists decry beauty standards as another tool of the patriarchy for controlling and repressing women, I would say that the hot YPJ chicks in the media are there to cater more to nerdboys, especially leftist nerdboys, who are fans of superheroines and other Amazonian women (though admittedly such women exist far more frequently in fiction but then even actual male fighters don’t shoot lasers out of their eyes and swing around NYC like Spider-Man). Point being that there is definitely poetic license woven in with the actual facts in just about any media product.

          • Hidden Author says:

            How is describing what happened in the Iliad intentionally stupid? [More stupidity deleted]

            • jim says:

              You presumably believe that the fact that Agamemnon and Achilles quarreled over a pretty girl proves something, but neglect to explain what it proves, or how it proves it.

              That men, myself among them, are prone to fight over pretty girls is hardly news.

          • Hidden Author says:

            OK, what are your sources that YPJ women screwed ISIS jihadis? You can of course disagree with the mainstream narrative–that’s how truth is uncovered–but your sources have to be more reliable, if you expect to win the debate.

          • Hidden Author says:

            My point wasn’t that they quarreled over a pretty girl, it was that the pretty girl was captured from the enemy, the sort of thing that peppermint says white soldiers would never do.

            • jim says:

              Abduction. Not rape.

              The non white behavior is that they pass the girl on to the next guy when done. Which system Achilles objected to violently.

              White history is full of marriage by abduction, for example the Sabine women. And marriage by conquest. In most of Greece, what happened in most places at the end of the bronze age is that a bunch of patriarchal aryan males using iron weapons came in, massacred the men and the male children and the old women, and married the fertile age women at sword point.

              The word rape used to mean abduction, because rape type rape was uncommon. The word has changed meaning because of so many nonwhites around. Back in the seventeenth century we see the word “rape” being used both for abduction and elopement, when the girl unwisely, foolishly, and disobediently runs off with a suitor under her own power. Modern type rape, rape type rape, seems to have been rare.

              Whites have always “raped” in the progressive meaning of the word rape, which is to say, until recently whites considered female consent morally irrelevant. The point of the progressive meaning is to coercively impose black African sexual behavior on whites as morally superior, and demonize classic white behavior as commanded in the New Testament by Saint Paul as “Marital rape”, “Domestic partner abuse”, etc.

              What progressives call rape is in most cases the opposite of rape. If seven blacks in a dark alley hold a white girl down while they take turns being the eight one who fucks her, progressives are fine with that. What they are worried about is a husband insisting on his marital rights.

              Progressives are redefining rape to impose black African mating behaviors on whites.

          • Eli says:

            And, of course, proto-Semites (Amorites and their ancestors and relatives in the circum Arabian pastoralist complex) and later Semites (Israelites and warriors of monarchic Israel/Judeah) practiced marriage by abduction as a norm. Here is a funny example of a prog explanation of such custom by a Western-minded Rav to a clueless American libertard:

            http://www.aish.com/atr/Eishet-Yefat-Toar-Woman-Captured-in-War.html

            • jim says:

              This interpretation of the Old Testament appears to be a great deal holier and more progressive than the original old testament that is being interpreted, as you imply when you call him a prog.

              One month is how long you need to ascertain if the girl became pregnant as a result of being banged by umpteen men in the chaos.

              Obviously the rules of the old testament are to ensure paternal certainty, rather than to ensure politically correct treatment of women.

              The article you link to, reassures the reader that the Old Testament is totally PC, and the reader can be a Jew and a progressive simultaneously.

          • Eli says:

            Quite likely you are right. Let us keep in mind that the book of Deuteronomy was written during Babylonian exile, around 6th century BC. This is quite well into the Axial Age, with its philosophization centered around morality (good/evil) and God. Babylon was, at the time, one of the most advanced societies, and there could have been Iranian/Zoroastrian influences as well.

            It’s quite likely that the Zadokkite elite in exile took a very old Semitic custom from pastoralist days and explained it in a new, moralizing way. It’s instructive to keep in mind that they, being in exile, could certainly not find this very custom being operative in their lives and the life of people of their community.

      • I’m sure stranger rape occurs. I was referring only to cases where the girl knows the alleged attacker’s name.

  7. Sig Sawyer says:

    Brilliant insight. I always knew that the rape hysteria was a misplacement of male instinct to protect women from themselves.

    Nothing more to add, save that it seems almost impossible to turn that instinct around using rhetoric: most men intuitively know to protect women from themselves, even though they won’t admit it. Making a man see himself as a dominator instead of a cuckold is the central question to everything on the Alt-Right.

    • jim says:

      Men want to protect women.

      Women are being hurt.

      But what needs to be done to protect women (supervision, guidance, and corporal discipline) is politically unthinkable, so men engage in displacement activity.

      • peppermint says:

        women are, of course, being oppressed by bad men (I personally know more children of a single White mother by a Jew than I can count on both hands) who they would not be involved with if their father and mother had the ability or knowledge to stop them. We need a more subtle answer than to force these women to be subjugated by the first man to knock them up, such as gassing the kikes and whipping miscegenating women then turning them over to White convicts who have served their sentences. Every story of spousal abuse I have ever personally heard has either been by Jewish men or feminist women.

  8. Contaminated NEET says:

    I’m sorry to hear about your wife.

  9. Mark Yuray says:

    My condolences, Jim.

    Otherwise, this is an epic post. Cutting reality at the joints as always. I’ll be sending this to my friends.

  10. Condolences indeed, Jim. You are in our (completely unironical) prayers.

  11. peppermint says:

    Condolences. Her memory will remain etched in the eternal history of the Aryan race at its most dire moment as an influence on an influential man.

  12. Thrasymachus says:

    I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your wife, Jim.

  13. Orthodox says:

    Condolences Jim.

    Réquiem aetérnam dona ei, Dómine.
    Et lux perpétua lúceat ei.

  14. R7_Rocket says:

    Rest In Peace.

  15. Frank says:

    Condolences.

    I’d like to hear your thoughts on the Jake Appelbaum case. It is potentially pregnant with lots of insights.

    http://jacobappelbaum.net/

    • jim says:

      Not interested in what queers do to queers. It is always horrible and disgusting, and I therefore expect that whatever Jake did to the grossly effeminate queers presenting that website was also horrible and disgusting. Queers create drama. That website is queer drama. I am sure there are two sides to the story, and both sides are revolting.

      • Joe says:

        I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody spell it out so succinctly before. The whole homosexual thing is repulsive in every aspect: their affectations, their sexual behaviors, their effect on society (homosexual “marriage”, Boy Scouts, catholic priests, etc), all of it. I never really cared about gays in the past – live and let live – but at this point I am fed up to here with them. “Not interested in what queers to do queers.” Absolutely fucking right.

  16. Trollercoaster says:

    Sorry for your loss

  17. spandrell says:

    My condolences Jim.

    Come visit if you’re bored, I’ll show you around.

    Or move to Davao and I’ll go visit you.

  18. Kristor says:

    Very sorry to hear this news. May God bless and keep you all.

  19. Zach says:

    “Recently my wife died, after a long and terrible illness.”

    Jesus Christ Jim. Doubtless one of the good ones.

  20. Steve Johnson says:

    My condolences jim.

  21. Spook Nukem says:

    My condolences Jim for your loss.

    I’ve been a silent reader of your blog for at least a year via Neorxn.com and have seen the reality of your conclusions on women’s sexuality acted out in London and lately on holiday in Croatia. Once you understand it, you can control for it.

    Best regards

  22. Zach says:

    My mother used to be a good wife, and was very intelligent, honorable, loyal and virtuous. Dinner on the table, every day at 5pm, no excuses. No excuses!!! Ha! Then my father died. She married politics and literally did a 180 and started believing literally all the bat-shit insane stuff the typical feminist does.

    I think she’s representative of women overall. Even for daughters, it’s very easy to be flushed down that toilet without a proper (male) framework. To unbreak that egg, requires good fathers.

    I loathe white liberal males. The ones who can have a large impact have now turned into women. However, follow the bread crumbs far enough, it all goes back to leftism.

  23. Zach says:

    Off-topic.

    Oh, had this on in the background.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mYeZ9by-eM

    (interesting how he cleverly avoids the obvious through clever maneuvering)

  24. Ansible says:

    My condolences Jim, may she rest in peace.

  25. Glenfilthie says:

    All that goes to prove that I am correct and always have been. There is no such thing as free love, fellas, even though women themselves changed the sexual contract. The sexual contract is embedded at the genetic level and essentially reads, “You fuck it, you own it. ALL of it”. Unless you are extremely lucky, this contract will be enforced at the judicial level too. Any man that does not understand this and act accordingly is at the mercy of whatever feral wench he beds. There will be no mercy, no fairness, no appeal. If the wench is bat shit crazy – you will own that too.

    Restraint. Forethought. Honour – these are the manly virtues that will save today’s young man from the failed modern woman. If you aren’t prepared to own it, boys – don’t fuck it. It’s that simple.

    • jim says:

      Unless you are extremely lucky, this contract will be enforced at the judicial level too.

      On the contrary, this contract is forbidden at the judicial level, as judges, police, and lawyers systematically enforce black African sexual behavior on white males. The point and purpose is to make all husbands guilty of marital rape and domestic partner abuse, to prevent men from owning women. That is what the members of Phi Beta Kappa are being taught in Sexual Assault Awareness Class: That if you fuck it you don’t own it, are forbidden to own it. Ryan Duffin refused to take possession, and he is not being punished, even though if anyone other than Jackie Coakley herself is to blame for the sufferings of Jackie Coakley, it is Ryan Duffin. It is all those other males who had nothing to do with this little soap opera who are being punished for the sufferings of Jackie Coakley.

      Jackie Coakley, being a woman, naturaly demanded black African behavior, being a woman, naturally did not like it when she got it. Therefore, all the males that had nothing to do with this, who failed to engage in black African behavior, are to be punished.

      <sarcasm>If women demand what they are naturally inclined to demand, and then do not like what they get, obviously white males must have bad attitudes, and their toxic masculinity needs to be cured.</sarcasm>

      This is an example of magic causation. Just as people cause black and female work underperformance merely by thinking bad thoughts about blacks and women, men make women’s sexual choices go wrong merely by thinking bad thoughts about women’s capacity to make sexual choices.

      <sarcasm>Since Ryan Duffin took Jackie Coakley at her word, and acted like a nigger, he obviously has the right attitude to women. Since her choices made her unhappy, there must be some other males somewhere with the wrong attitude to women, whose evil thoughts cause her choices to make her unhappy.</sarcasm>

      Of course, what actually needs to be done is to remedy her choices with a public caning for sexual immorality. Obviously she not only needs corporal punishment, but it is clear from her sexual fantasies that she wants corporal punishment.

      • Hidden Author says:

        You and glenfilthie are arguing over the meaning of the word “own”. Glenfilthie counts ownership of the responsibility for traumatizing people as a form of ownership, even if a man lacks possession of any other forms of ownership…

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Correct, HA.

          Jim – we are men. We know and understand the idea of actions and consequences. It’s a double edged blade for us too. When men start to dissociate their actions from consequences – bad things befall them. Men have been undone by greed and pride and lust since time immemorial. What we are seeing today is nothing new – except perhaps the machinations and semantic gymnastics of the feminist liberal courts as you describe.

          As a good man with a good wife – I care not one whit what some robed ass hat considers the sexual contract to be. I have taken pains to ensure I will never be at the mercy of fools like that – as all men should.

    • peppermint says:

      » women themselves changed the sexual contract

      no they didn’t. Men who have this worldview of souls and rejected the scriptures did.

      Revilo Oliver says that Christcuckery may have taken off partly because Christcuck mythology claims to be history, while the Greek mythology, even the parts that truly are historical, was never truly believed to be history.

      By the time the dust settled, we had the Scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas.

      The Christcuck scriptures were becoming increasingly embarrassing even by the time of the Deists who founded this country, and were progressively phased out, leaving behind a worldview in which humans have souls and all souls are presumably equal.

      From the new biological worldview, we can understand why the ancient traditions of our people made sense. We can also understand feminist women are poster girls and it’s the men with that worldview that do all that stuff.

      And we can understand how we’re going to be able to restore the traditions of our people: by cuck-shaming the intellectuals.

      • jim says:

        » women themselves changed the sexual contract

        no they didn’t. Men who have this worldview of souls and rejected the scriptures did.

        Women lack sufficient agency to change or impose any contract. However if you abandon them in the sexual jungle to make their own choices, they are apt to make black African style choices, unless they receive firm guidance from the men in their lives. This, however, reflects not agency, but lack of agency.

        In the seventeenth century, the Christian rule that females need to consent to marriage was at best given only superficial compliance, and was frequently flat out ignored, yet I don’t see a single complaint by women about arranged marriages. Only after women are emancipated, do we see women demanding emancipation.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Because upper-class, straight, white males are *never* influenced by changing social norms. So when you said that they increasingly, distressingly beta due to societal influences, you were only kidding…

          • jim says:

            They are increasingly beta due to direct coercion – threats to their careers, threats of criminal prosecution. That is why lawyercunts tend to fuck their lowlife criminal clients, who are free to be far more manly than their partners at the bar.

            You will notice that the ruling elite lacks testosterone in proportion to how much it is under the thumb of Harvard and how far it is from Harvard. Obama is a fag, Putin a man.

          • Hidden Author says:

            And yet when lower-class, non-white or female individuals are shaped by the norms demanded by authority, they lack agency, even if they receive far more coercion than upper-class, straight white males…it’s almost as if you believe whatever you want to believe…

            • jim says:

              Females of all classes receive substantially less coercion than upper class white males. Indeed females of all classes receive substantially less coercion than males of all classes. That is exactly the problem. In the ancestral environment, women were subject to extremely high levels of coercion, are psychologically adapted to it, and perform poorly without it.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Are you sure men aren’t psychologically adapted to coercion? After all, so many submit, which is the standard you use to prove that women submit to coercion. In fact, you yourself use that standard for men themselves when explaining that peasants, workers, voters, citizens, etc. submitting to kings and generals is the natural order of things…

            • jim says:

              We domesticated ourselves. Of course we are adapted to coercion. But women are far more adapted to coercion than men, and are incapable of being psychologically healthy without it.

          • peppermint says:

            There are many other species in which men rank themselves, most notably the goats, and the women go along with the ranking the men choose.

            Only in White humans right now do the men deliberately confuse the women about what the ranking is. Nature abhors a cuckold, and we will soon go extinct unless we start signaling to women differently.

            Who is not allowed to insult whom is a signal that women recognize.

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Untrue. I will not accept that, it doesn’t coincide with what I’ve seen.

          In my shit house estimation, roughly 50% are capable of rudimentary agency – at least. That number is suspiciously congruent with the divorce stats too. I find that odd – because of those women that are capable of agency – the bulk of them will defer to their men.

          • peppermint says:

            of those women that are capable of agency – the bulk of them will defer to their men

            Nd why is that?

            You would understand if you had a biological perspective, but with souls, you are stuck with arguing about agency, and lost.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Nonsense, P-Mint. You misunderstand me – I am a friend of the faith, not necessarily an adherent.

            Why is it, in your opinion, that TRULY capable women, capable of HONEST independence (and I am not talking about these homely, flat chested feminist poseurs with bad haircuts) … why do they defer to their men?

            • jim says:

              A good woman should defer, even if she suspects she has better judgment than her husband. The New Testament has a copious discussion of how good women should treat bad husbands, and the short of it is, respectfully.

              And a woman who does not defer, somehow never has all these admirable characteristics that would justify her failure to defer. Every woman that I observe failing to defer, is refusing to accept correction for behavior that is wicked, foolish, and self destructive.

          • peppermint says:

            The fact that you ask that question implies that you still believe in souls.

            If you truly believed in biology, you would recognize that those women – which are most White women at least, and certainly most Black women, since Black women have an evolutionary history of financial independence – who are capable of exercising agency in oikonomic matters and defer to their husbands, are acting like the women of every other species with fatherhood behavior, with the possible exception of penguins and snowy owls who appear to be so driven by their reproductive instincts on the edge of possibility that it is difficult to say that the women are submissive.

            Literally everyone has for literally all of recorded history recognized the submissiveness of women of all species. The one species I know of with literal transsexuality is this fish that transforms from female to male when it reaches a certain age, presumably thus proving itself.

            The idea that women aren’t or should be shamed into not being submissive is utterly retarded and only appeared as part of this unhinged souls without scriptures worldview that emerged in the 17th century.

          • peppermint says:

            (Now awaiting mention of the insects with neither fatherhood nor motherhood behavior that eat their husbands to gather nutrients to produce more kids)

          • peppermint says:

            (feminism and multiculturalism also appeared in the last days of other decadent empires which were dying of tax cuckoldry and concomitant lack of children, so cuckstain moral philosophy isn’t necessary for these intellectual ideals to rise, but it is certainly useful)

          • Glenfilthie says:

            I will agree with you, Jim – those fiercely independent women that will take no orders from men – are quite often shrews and rather dull ones at that.

      • imnobody00 says:

        Yes, this is, when Christcuckery was high, patriarchy was high. When Christcuckery is low, feminism is hign. Everybody know that feminists are in favor of Christian sexual morals.

        And, of course, the solution is to go back to Greek gods. I wonder how I had not thought such a sensible strategy. Pure genius.

        • peppermint says:

          » everyone knows that feminists are in favor of Christian sexual morals

          Christian sexual morals (according to St. Thomas Aquinas)

          (1) all souls come from ((Yahweh)). Due to hyelomorphism, this implies that the bodies also come from ((Yahweh)).
          (2) Sometimes female souls are put in male bodies, this is just something that happens. Actually, Aquinas’ hyelomorphism prohibits this, and he talks about the differences between female souls and male souls using Scripture. Dualism and no scripture suggests that female souls could be put in male bodies, and refusing to appreciate the fact that humans are mammals, which Aquinas agreed with, makes this entire delusion possible.
          (3) Masturbation (the unnatural vice) is worse than fornication – this is retarded, because fornication leads to bastards. Cut your foreskin off to prevent yourself from masturbating – this became popular amongst 19th century Americans.
          (4) since all souls come from ((Yahweh)) and are exactly the same, it makes no sense to shun bastards. In fact, Aquinas agrees with shunning bastards, but modern Christians don’t.

          in The Parts of Lust, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm , Aquinas repeatedly has to apologize for the behavior of ((Old Testament)) characters and the commands of ((Yahweh)). This is a major problem of using the ((Old Testament)), but the bigger problem is the way it serves as a letter of introduction for Jews, and the biggest problem is when people try to replace science with other people’s legends.

          On wet dreams:

          » Now nocturnal pollution is more apt to arise from thinking about carnal sins with concupiscence for such pleasures, because this leaves its trace and inclination in the soul, so that the sleeper is more easily led in his imagination to consent to acts productive of pollution. In this sense the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that “in so far as certain movements in some degree pass” from the waking state to the state of sleep, “the dreams of good men are better than those of any other people”: and Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15) that “even during sleep, the soul may have conspicuous merit on account of its good disposition.”

          » The third cause is spiritual and external; for instance when by the work of a devil the sleeper’s phantasms are disturbed so as to induce the aforesaid result

          Do you pray to ((Yahweh)) for forgiveness or to exorcise a demon after having a wet dream?

          On incest:

          » The second reason is because blood relations must needs live in close touch with one another. Wherefore if they were not debarred from venereal union, opportunities of venereal intercourse would be very frequent and thus men’s minds would be enervated by lust. Hence in the Old Law [Leviticus 18] the prohibition was apparently directed specially to those persons who must needs live together.

          This is bullshit for Aryans, who have instincts against incest, but may not be bullshit for Jews, who have heroes who heroically fucked their parents, and Freud, who wrote about how everyone wants to fuck their parents. Obvious and less obvious behavioral differences between Aryans and Jews is problem with using the ((Old Testament)).

          Going back to Aquinas for sexual morality is retarded, and going back to Aquinas is impossible anyway, because souls is a stupid way of looking at things and God doesn’t exist. Biology it is, then.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Well there ya go then!

            No God, no need for morality, find ’em, finger ’em, fuck ’em and forget ’em…except when those filthy groids do it to your old lady, HAR HAR HAR!

            I’m sorry, P-Mint, I shouldn’t laugh. It’s just that when I was a boy, many of Alberta’s pioneer women were still alive. They came here from half a world away, plunked down on the prairie with little more than their clothes and rudimentary supplies…and had 6 months to build a house, a barn and get a crop in the ground.

            Those women weren’t helpless, or lacking in agency, or grit. They didn’t have time for histrionics or drama. And as far as the mud-sharking goes… ya gotta admit the white males today are mostly pansies and they’re getting worse…

            • jim says:

              They had husbands supervising them. Without a man supervising them, women will not accumulate capital and build for the future.

              Women have a quite strong nest building instinct, but it just does not kick in without a man above them. No man, no nest building. Female nest building really requires a man above and children below. Otherwise nest burning is more their style.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Mmmmmm…I will disagree on that, Jim. Old world women were very practical and formidable savers. The fact is I learned household economics at the knee of my Grandmother. When she was 12 she and her brothers and sisters were kicked out of the house and literally onto the street at the height of the depression when her mother remarried. (This as per custom in those days – you were not expected to raise another man’s children).

            Hmmmm… might be more accurate to say that women won’t invest or risk to build a future although that is not entirely true either. But these days that is true of most of our young men too…

            • jim says:

              Mmmmmm…I will disagree on that, Jim. Old world women were very practical and formidable savers. The fact is I learned household economics at the knee of my Grandmother

              I bet that when she was teaching you thrift and practicing thrift, there was a man in the house who had authority.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I am very, very sorry to hear of your loss.

    But what, then, of the twenty thousand white women raped by ‘groids every year in Ameri-Kwa?

    • jim says:

      Fact is, by and large those rapes are indeed largely unprosecuted.

      But strange to report, no one proposes to make headline news of such rapes, or implement collective punishment against black males the way they are implementing collective punishment against white males.

      Similarly, Rotherham rapes, New years eve sexual assaults in Germany. To the victor, the women, and women like it that way. If we want women to stop liking it we have to start winning instead of losing. There must be a thousand women complaining about Phi Beta Kappa for every woman complaining about Rotherham. Women like a society where winners can rape them at knifepoint, beat them, and cut them up a little bit, and losers get punished for thinking about smiling at them. And proof of this is: Who is complaining about Rotherham?

      It is stupid to make rape illegal without making it illegal for a woman to sleep with someone who is not her husband.

      If women really did not like rape then:
      1: They would not be wanting to “take back the night”. Do businessmen walk around in dark alleys with two bulging wallets hanging out of their pockets in order to take back the night?
      2: We would be getting a hell of a lot more mileage out of Rotherham and the New Years Eve assaults than we have been getting.

      Darwinism predicts that husbands and fathers should object to rape far more strongly than women, that rape is essentially the same offense causing the same harm to the same people as fornication and adultery, and this is consistent with observed behavior. If a woman is in a laundromat late at night, she is single, because if she had a husband, her husband would not allow it. Husbands are far more concerned about the possible rape of their wives than their wives are, as we would predict from evolutionary psychology.

      Rape, like adultery, is primarily a crime against male property rights in women, and should be treated as such.

      Women are not really worried about rape, and when they talk about rape, they are really talking in code about something else, as became embarrassingly obvious in the Phi Beta Kappa case and in Rotherham.

  27. Sam says:

    Jim,

    I am sorry for your loss. Good Lord.

    Along the lines of rape, I saw this article from the Small Wars Journal that seemed appropriate:

    “Changing the “Macho” Male Culture of the US Military”
    http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/changing-the-%E2%80%9Cmacho%E2%80%9D-male-culture-of-the-us-military

    ” . . . In essence, the idea of many of these advocates is that the American male is a, mostly unconscious, misogynist, and that it comes from our culture: movies that hype physicality, combat, aggressiveness, and the treatment of women as objects. It also comes from our military: males dominate the services, are the only ones allowed in combat arms, and thus make up most of the higher ranks. The cure for all of this is simple: change the culture.

    “The “change the culture” movement has manifested itself in many ways and has taken on different efforts as well as groups that are loosely aligned towards fundamental change. On college campuses it has largely taken on the shape of the movement to end sexual harassment and sexual assault. As one professor from a prominent campus told me recently, “It isn’t really about ending sexual assault; it’s about controlling people and changing behavior. Men have the advantage in almost every way, so we have to find ways to cut into that advantage. Making traditional male behavior something that is socially unacceptable will cut their advantage. We have to make it unacceptable for men to talk the way they talk now, act the way they act now, and interact the way they do with women now, and have traditionally.” Hyping sexual assault statistics, making women fearful of men, and building a system that finds men guilty until proven innocent are simply means to the greater end of “cutting male advantage.”

  28. Alan J. Perrick says:

    This essay doesn’t take into account the amount of expectations towards self-hatred aimed at white men, which many white men who haven’t taken precautions against then apply, in turn making themselves self-hating and anti-white. Why would a white woman want to be with that kind of individual. Therefore, one may see the cause of the current white woman sex strike against White Genocide, a sex strike against those who push for the complete destruction of the white race. #WWSSAWhiteGenocide

    A.J.P.

  29. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Can I post here or what?

  30. I left a comment on this earlier, but it may have gotten eaten because of the link. It appears, via her father’s FB page that Jackie Coakley did recently get married and she’s either gotten quite fat, or is with child (or both). Search gotnews for the story.

  31. […] Our heartfelt condolences go out to Jim whose wife passed away after a long illness. […]

  32. […] Such a truth can be found in a recent blog post about rape […]

  33. […] on the home blog, Landry has some points to add to Jim’s excellent article on The Thorny Issue of Rape. For […]

Leave a Reply