Post: #1

As numerous RoK articles have pointed out, women must have their behavior and decisions controlled by men. It's evident from how commonly women regret sex afterward, that many (if not most, or all) women are not able to handle the responsibility of making decisions about sex.

Not only that, when women make a bad decision about sex, they often can't even admit responsibility for the bad decision, but instead feel compelled to blame the man and call him a rapist. Women do this to get out of trouble (e.g. for cheating on their boyfriend or violating their parents' rules), or simply to avoid feeling guilty or stupid for a regrettable decision. Even when the circumstances suggest that they initially were DTF, they can claim that they they were too intoxicated to consent or that they withdrew consent at the last moment (after they'd gotten undressed and worked the guy up to an eager state of sexual excitement) and the man selfishly forced himself upon them rather than stopping.

The fact that there are a lot of women claiming that they said "yes" only because they were drunk, or that they withdrew consent at the last moment and got raped, suggests that they are foolish, indecisive and prone to changing their minds based on arbitrary and capricious whim. Would you trust a person to make important decisions affecting you, who often makes important decisions while under the influence of alcohol; or who is always changing their mind and cancelling important plans at the last moment that they've gotten others to buy into? (Presumably, having sex is an important decision, or the state wouldn't be punishing people with long prison terms for unlawful sex.)

The courts usually won't be able to sort out whether consent was in fact freely given and that it remained in effect at the time sex took place. After all, many of these rape reports are made weeks, months, or years after the alleged rape, when the evidence is mostly gone. At any rate, typically no breathalyzer test is conducted, and no notarized consent form is signed, at the moment of penetration. Inevitably, either a lot of rapes will go unpunished, or a lot of innocent men will be found guilty, depending on what the burden of proof and the standard of evidence are.

Therefore, I propose that we simply eliminate from the rape statutes any mention of the woman's consent to sex. Rather, it should be the father who consents to give his daughter in marriage to a husband who then is entitled to have sex with her whenever he wants. Having sex with an unmarried virgin woman should be considered a violation of the father's right to give away his virgin daughter to a man of his choosing. (Similarly, having sex with someone else's wife would be considered a violation of the husband's right to exclusive sexual access to his wife.)

"Marriage" as the criterion for when sex is lawful would be a more objective standard than consent. The marriage would be duly recorded in front of a notary while the contracting parties (the groom and the father of the bride) are of sober mind and have probably given the matter a great deal of thought, unlike a woman's consent to sex which is often decided on the spur of the moment and signaled implicitly by her nonverbal behavior, and could be subject to after-the-fact distortion. It is rarely claimed that marriages took place under conditions of duress (since there are so many witnesses who can attest to the circumstances of the marriage and the contracting parties' state of mind); in contrast, women are quite often claiming that their acquiescence to sex occurred while they were under duress.

Prohibiting sex with unmarried women will give every unmarried woman security that if she can prove that sex occurred, there will be justice if she is raped. The man will not be able to get away with rape by falsely claim that she consented, because the law will not recognize women as being competent to consent to sex. (The legal environment is already moving in this direction anyway, so we may as well codify it.) Alpha men will have an incentive to settle down and get married at a young age, rather than playing the field, so that they can legally have sex. The removal of these alpha men from the sexual marketplace will mostly eliminate the carousel and give horny women a reason to get married at a younger age as well.

In short, this is a way to achieve many of our community's goals for reforming the dysfunctional mate market.

(Of course, some men could still be falsely accused of having sex with an unmarried woman, when in fact they didn't. One way to help prevent this kind of false accusation would be for men to be chaperoned at all times while courting their prospective brides, and for men to in general avoid being alone with women they aren't married to. In the Philippines, usually the chaperone is a family member such as a sister or cousin of the prospective bride, whose presence can be helpful in other ways besides giving you witnesses to attest to the fact that you didn't have sex. For example, my bride's sister and cousin helped me arrange a surprise proposal on the beach where a group of kids unexpectedly approached us at sunset while we were sitting on a bench overlooking the ocean and gave my bride her engagement ring while singing the "Marry that girl!" chorus from "Rude".)

Post: #2

No offense, but this is so far in the realm of "never going to happen" that it doesn't even merit discussion.

Post: #3

This describes the social situation in Saudi Arabia doesn't it? You could always move there.

I am happy getting my milk without buying the cow, and enjoying the decline.

Post: #4

I'm gonna have to break down why your post is both wrong and ineffectual in the morning. I haven't laughed this hard in a while.

Post: #5

(06-20-2016 04:45 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  No offense, but this is so far in the realm of "never going to happen" that it doesn't even merit discussion.

Post: #6

I won't be surprised if "SWJs" and the media try to use this thread whenever talking about roosh, it's game denialism as it's all about courting and marriage (nothing in between) while trying to shut the players down.

This thread has been rated 100% incel by yours truly.

Post: #7

I don't think that Raymond and I live in the same world.

Post: #8

I tried rereading through it and wanting to break it down, but I think even the casual observer can understand why this is both retarded nor possible in the slightest way.

Good luck trying to remove female agency all the while proposing another thing that will slander Roosh in the media further. Good fucking job.

OP I highly suggest you go get some fresh air, sunshine, and a healthy dose of human communication.

Post: #9

Just record everything and never fingerbang drunk girls in public.

The issue of sexual degeneracy and the unrestrained hypergamy of female sexuality lacks an authoritative power to control it. Men have lost and women have gained over the past 100 years from the right to vote, to equal pay, and (almost) all the same job opportunities. Men, rather than women, need to be empowered despite what society tells us in order for many relationships to function. Respect, not love nor lust, is the most essential part of a relationship, not for male-female mating, but for a functioning relationship - a marriage. Empowering men, apparently at the expense of women, would actually be more fulfilling for a female's natural biology than the current state of empowerment that women enjoy.

I am all for having marriages approved of by families, though it may not necessarily be required for marriage. Marriage has become meaningless spiritually; although, it still has merit with the government and finances despite the separation of Church and State. Religion would need to make a very big comeback in order for this to work, much like the aforementioned Saudi Arabia's strong religious influence on the culture (Islam).

Post: #10

I think this post went way over most guys' heads. Anyone flipping out after reading this and acting like a triggered SJW ("I CAN'T EVEN!) obviously doesn't realize that with this post RaymondKertezc did not invent some new legal or moral proposal out of whole cloth: he simply proposed a return to the traditional social and legal treatment towards marriage that was commonly practiced in the West for most of the last two thousand years. Yes, this is exactly what marriage used to be. That may offend modern libertine social values that prioritize easy access to sex above all else, but these restrictive sexual mores surrounding marriage unarguably dominated Western life for centuries. Like it or not, this is where we came from. Restricting sex to the marriage bed not only does away with the problem of false rape accusations almost completely as the OP notes, it significantly reduces the spread of venereal disease, greatly enhances the stability of marriage by limiting female (and somewhat less importantly, male) partner counts, entirely removes the blight of of "single mothers" from society, naturally limits feminist ideology and encourages women to invest their most fertile years towards motherhood rather than working, and generally acts to promote a pro-family, pro-civilizational lifestyle for both men and women. Separating sex and marriage was one of, if not the single most socially destructive changes the West experienced in the past century. That's simply a fact, regardless of how one personally feels about the issue.

The fact that most guys here don't realize how normal (common sense, really) the proposal in this post would sound from a historical perspective is a bit alarming, but not exactly surprising given today's educational and social climate. If the OP honestly sounded shocking and bizarre to you, I would encourage you to spend more time reading old books and less time watching television. And I say that in total sincerity and as an actual recommendation, not a thinly veiled insult. Read old books, written pre-1900. You will be amazed how much Western culture has degraded socially and morally in the past century. And at the same time, stop filling your brain with garbage television programming (the key word there: your brain is being programmed to accept what it sees as normal) that gives you a false perception of healthy, natural human behavior.

The reaction to this post is as if a man who had been drinking poison for years and had become accustomed to its taste was finally given an ice cold glass of pure spring water, and upon tasting it for the first time spit it out and declared it disgusting and unfit for human consumption. So it is with men who have become desensitized to a profoundly degraded moral climate in society: upon witnessing traditional, healthy morality, they literally become sick and think it's toxic to them.

Post: #11

scorpion yes in an ideal society this would work.


The problem being that you cannot change the modern social climate so rapidly back to that time period. It's shocking and counter productive because we have already went past the point of no return for that kind of time period.

We can't magically turn back the clock to before 1900 even if we would like too. And to be honesty I would rather not. I enjoy the "depravity" of this time period simply because only the men whom truly strive will be able to get something. The people most deserving of sex and the pursuit of happiness get it.

The common man isn't worth shit in my eyes. You can try, nudge, and attempt to better him, but the majority don't want to open their eyes or try to better themselves. I say let this all rot before any of this can be even given a serious consideration.

It gets even worse with the "modern" women behaving as they do. Pandora's Box has been opened and all of its evils come out, but the only thing we have left is hope in that box. Hope that all of this might fall apart and we can rebuild from the ruins a better man and a better society. Perhaps then such an arrangement can work, but until then this will be the stuff of fairy tales. It's inane and no better than poison.

Post: #12

(06-19-2016 05:32 PM)RaymondKertezc Wrote:  Rather, it should be the father who consents to give his daughter in marriage to a husband who then is entitled to have sex with her whenever he wants. )

I have no interest in living in a world like this, and I have no interest in having a daughter that lives in a world like this either.

I prefer to live in a world where everyone has free-will.

Post: #13

(06-23-2016 08:12 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  scorpion yes in an ideal society this would work.


The problem being that you cannot change the modern social climate so rapidly back to that time period. It's shocking and counter productive because we have already went past the point of no return for that kind of time period.

Certainly true. But personally I didn't take the post to be a realistic proposal that could implemented today, but rather more of a provocative thought experiment similar to Roosh's infamous article about legalizing rape on private property. The point essentially being, "Hey, look how radical this proposal sounds...oh and by the way, this is literally what used to be considered normal and common sense for most of human history." Just a bit of a mindfuck to illustrate how much things have changed in a relatively short period of time.

Post: #14

In an ideal world, men (namely fathers and brothers) would strongly police the behavior of women, especially unmarried daughters and sisters. Given the political license women have today to work against their own interests or that of society, this proposal is nothing but a pipe dream.

That being said, patriarchy is coming back in one or more of the following forms:

1. Islam takes over the West and implements strong restrictions of female behavior.
2. Economic collapse crushes women's ability to depend upon the state for provider status, making women focus more on how to attract and keep a man.
3. War (civil or otherwise) depletes the supply of men, women again try harder to signal worthiness. (See FSU countries where there are a shortage of men).

In the mean time, you can game and tease your sister's and daughters. I just told my sister that her hair shouldn't be shorter than mine after she got a pixie cut. Yes, it was a shitlord thing to do, and got a hurt look. Big fat deal. I followed it up with that cancer survivors have short hair, the closer you look to that standard, the more beauty you subtract. She was seething, but I know I got my point across. Women start changing when the men in their lives stop worrying about cowering to how she'll think. Men need backbone. It starts with every individual man.

Post: #15

In Chinese, the word meaning rape is a part of the term for adultery. This reflects that whether or not sex was okay was based on marriage or concubinage and not consent.

Post: #16

(06-24-2016 04:49 PM)Lunostrelki Wrote:  In Chinese, the word meaning rape is a part of the term for adultery. This reflects that whether or not sex was okay was based on marriage or concubinage and not consent.

Interesting tidbit. That explains partially whey some of the biggest shitlord patriarchs are 1st-gen Chinese guys. Their marriages are very stable. Old-school alpha providers that keep their women in check.

Post: #17

(06-22-2016 08:36 AM)Jones Wrote:  never fingerbang drunk girls in public.

   

Post: #18

(06-20-2016 04:45 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  No offense, but this is so far in the realm of "never going to happen" that it doesn't even merit discussion.

No offense, but what are you doing on the deep forum, then?

G