WTF is a MGTOW? A Glossary

On this blog, MRA does not mean Magnetic Resonance Angiography

For newcomers to this blog, here’s a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you’ll encounter here and in the “manosphere” in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you’ll see most often here:

MRA: Men’s Rights Activist
MRM: Men’s Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way.

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men’s Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as “men’s rights.” Unlike the original Men’s Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men’s Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men’s Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men’s rights per se; they are opposed to those who’ve turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking “independence” from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date “western women” and some try to avoid women altogether.  I think the Man Going His Own Way acronym MGHOW adds another layer of confusion to an already awkward acronym, so I use MGTOWer instead.

Some other terms and acronyms you’ll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. A term, and identity, adopted by some dateless guys (as well as some women, but it’s the men we’ll focus on here). While there is nothing shameful about being dateless, or a virgin, or having a really long dry spell sexually — most of us have been there at some point — the term “involuntarily celibate” seems to suggest that the world owes incels sex, and that women who turn down incel men for dates or sex are somehow oppressing them. For those (male, straight) incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. And often does.

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them — e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they’ve come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: “not all women are like that.” Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes — known as “Game” — that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on “game” online, though PUA (insofar as it is not complete bullshit) is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old ploy of “playing hard to get.”

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with “foreign women,” a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of “Ameriskanks” and other WW.

About these ads
  1. CassandraSays

    The shirt can say “Women Who Don’t Want To Be Taken Are Just Insecure”. It’ll clear a room faster than bad gas.

  2. You assume lots of things, thats what happens when theory dictates reality. People stop thinking and starts doing automatic assumptions.

    Oh man, that is just fucking priceless. You spend a week, a godsdamn WEEK puffing out massive, stinking clouds of obfuscation, twisting and torturing logic beyond any and all recognition, and now without a hint of irony you crack out this fucking gem. Unbelievable.

  3. CassandraSays

    PUA really is like a religion for its followers, isn’t it? Their belief that you can make a woman who’s not interested in sex with you become interested via the use of the correct cheat codes is the PUA answer to the theory of transubstantiation.

  4. Argenti Aertheri

    Cassandra — his logic being the disaster it is, I’m not sure on this, but I think the “insecure” comment was intended to mean that anyone who thinks women don’t want to be taken must be insecure in their ability to successful take a woman (which is worse really).

    Also, I think he called Pecunium insecure…he’s really got to try better on his insults.

    As for “I know you are but what am I?” — in IR’s case he was managing to twist himself sideways to accuse me of attempting to gaslight him by implying he must be homophobic like the rest of the MRM, so I wasn’t really sure enough of whether he was trying his hand at gaslighting, or just fucking clueless as usual. With IR maybe school yard taunts are best though, that seems about his level.

    “Oh man, that is just fucking priceless….Unbelievable.” — Dracula
    “PUA really is like a religion for its followers, isn’t it?” — Cassandra

    Yes, to both of those.

  5. Argenti Aertheri

    No.

  6. If she says yes to “fooling around”, she already were interested in you and you not asking would make her way happier cause women prefer to be taken. Confusing that with rape would be an obvious proof of insecurity.

    …yeah, we definitely shouldn’t confuse making someone have sex without in any way verifying that they want to do so with rape! Similarly, we should definitely not confuse setting someone’s house on fire with arson, or taking someone’s wallet out of their pocket while they’re not looking with theft.

    (Also, I really love the line just above that where you explicitly acknowledge that PUA is about keeping women from “having their way,” by having sex with them. Because that’s not rapey at all! Ugh.)

  7. enti: What in the everloving fuck is that shit? (This is how you can tell me from Pecunium btw, I swear a lot more)

    In print.

    Pecunium — what’s the fallacy of accusing me of what he’s doing? IR pulled this recently too.

    Tu quoque (Latin for, “You too”).

    As for rape by coercion, third sentence off wiki’s rape page — “The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, or is unconcious or incapacitated.” Following the links to the legal dictionary gets us — “In the early 2000s in many states, the prosecution can prove lack of consent by presenting evidence that the victim objected verbally to the sexual penetration or sexual intrusion.” — if you refuse to listen to anything besides a hard “NO!” then you are pushing the boundaries of this definition.

    In Sweden there is also the question of consent to each act. That’s the core of the case against Julian Assange. He’s alleged to have sex, a subsequent time, with a woman; and not used a condom. He, it seems, didn’t get permission to not use a condom, so it’s some form of sexual assault (I don’t know Swedish law well enough to know if the “rape” charges being discussed are accurate equivalents to the charge which is being investigated).

    So it’s not as if he’s not used to a legal system where force is a required element of the crime of rape.

    He’s a dishonest little shit, as well as being a deluded little shit; which is on top of his being a tedious little shit. (who will now say, dishonestly, that this is all ad hominem)

  8. You assume lots of things, thats what happens when theory dictates reality.

    Said with no sense of irony.

    The truth is I would not use BS-labels at all.

    Said with no sense of irony.

    you desperately trying to widen the definition is just manipulative – counting on most people not knowing the difference and the reactions for the original definition.

    Said with no sense of irony.

    Yes the word hater did exist before communists deciding to stop try to argue what is good with communism and instead basing their entire argument on attacking western society.

    Said with no sense of irony. (See above, re “BS-labels”)

  9. Akitivarum: Just telling her you are interested does not make HER interested

    Again with the use of “make” in a way which implies the woman doesn’t want sex, and you are going to convince her otherwise.

    Thats the bs people do in Hollywood movies

    I didn’t know I was the star of a Hollywood movie (imagine me, the star of a Hollywood movie Spill the wine, and dig that girl… o/”).

    If she says yes to “fooling around”, she already were interested in you

    Bingo! By the time I ask she’s interested. See how that works. No making involved.

    and you not asking would make her way happier cause women prefer to be taken. Confusing that with rape would be an obvious proof of insecurity.

    What? If she want me she would be unhappy if I told her so (and we then went and had sex), than if she didn’t want me and I “took her”.

    And my having sex by taking it when she doesn’t want it isn’t rape, but, “what she wants”.

    No, it’s rape. That you think it’s not, isn’t insecurity, it’s delusional.

    “Funny how I inform you women have free choice while you call things guys do you dont like “

    So let’s see how this free choice works.

    You want to screw some woman, she doesn’t want to, so you make her want to.

    Herrmn… I don’t see much fucking choice.

    Let’s try again. She’s interested in you, which means she’ll be less happy if you are also interested. That’s hard to believe, but that’s her choice (could you give a citation on that one? Some nice chewy ctudy with some fucking data?).

    Ok. She isn’t all that into you, says no, so you “take her”. Again, I’m not seeing much choice here.

    If she doesn’t want sex, you make/take sex. If she does want it, you say no, because sex with a woman who wants it isn’t all that good.

    I’m not seeing a whole lot of choice for the woman here. I am also seeing you forcing her to have sex when she doesn’t have any interest… and saying it’s not rape.

  10. (Is he sounding like a Swedish NWO to anyone else?)

    Yes. He really, really is. (He’s actually a little less coherent than NWO, but that could be the ESL thing.)

  11. Yep, Aktivarum, it’s all true. As a woman, I want a man to just fuck me without asking. I also want a man to push me off a plane without checking if I want to go sky-diving. And while I’m at it, I want him to take me to some restaurant and force me to eat what he picks out for me, regardless of whether or not I was hungry or liked that kind of food or anything silly like that.
    /sarcasm

  12. Funny how I inform you women have free choice while you call things guys do you dont like “rapey” (the most pathetic word I heard this week)

    And you, Aktivarum/Swedish NWO, are the most pathetic troll we’ve seen this week.

    The definition isn’t going to change to make you happy. Go away, aren’t you tired of this asskicking?

  13. Argenti Aertheri

    Pecunium — “‘This is how you can tell me from Pecunium btw, I swear a lot more’
    In print.”

    Lol, but he’s reading us in print! Thanks for the answer on tu quoque, and that part about Assange, I try to just pretend he doesn’t exist, but you’re right, he’s relevant here.

    “He’s a dishonest little shit, as well as being a deluded little shit; which is on top of his being a tedious little shit. (who will now say, dishonestly, that this is all ad hominem)”

    Of course he will, ignoring that it’d only be an ad hominem if that were why his arguments are full of crap, rather than all that and his arguments are full of carp. (That is not a typo, that’s an intentional fish reference for the peddler of fish)

    “I’m not seeing a whole lot of choice for the woman here. I am also seeing you forcing her to have sex when she doesn’t have any interest… and saying it’s not rape.”

    Yeah digging his heels in here in all the wrong ways. I’ve read that bit about “take her” about 6 times now, and I cannot make it say anything besides “women want to be raped” — the people who believe that shit need warning labels for the rest of us. (I’ve told you about Mr. “all women want sex and it’s not rape if she wants it” right? proto-rapist in-fucking-deed)

    Aktivarum — “could you give a citation on that one? Some nice chewy ctudy with some fucking data?” — we’re looking for data that says what you claim it says btw, I continue to be happy to tear apart shitty studies (there are just so many of them!)…and anything from pop culture is an auto-fail, they never get science right.

    Amnesia — 5:1 odds he’ll claim women really do want aggressive men who order for them. Wonder if he can make the skydiving example into “what women really want” though.

  14. Pecunium:

    “In Sweden there is also the question of consent to each act.”

    No, Sweden do not have any consent-law. We have a lack-of-consent law. A consent law is under investigation and the idea criticized in this news article. The idea is not met with resistance cause people like rape, its attacked on 2 points

    * Impossible to prove in court
    * Most sex among young people happens without either part asking formally for permission

    “That’s the core of the case against Julian Assange. He’s alleged to have sex, a subsequent time, with a woman; and not used a condom. He, it seems, didn’t get permission to not use a condom, so it’s some form of sexual assault”

    No, the core of the case against Julian Assange is him having sex with one woman SW unprotected and another woman AA (feminist politician) with a “ripped” condom. Thus the case being about what kind of degree of assualt it is to not wear a condom as promised earlier. However this causes problems, one obvious being a woman having sex and falsely claiming to be on the pill would be subject to the same law. The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.

    If women lies about being on the pill, would that be considered raping the man?

    Also the woman SW is terribly afraid for STD:s and this was the real reason for her being so distraught over the sexual encounter – this and him ignoring her in favor of looking at his computer. Not the sex itself. There are also lots of other problems with the case. One female prosecutor already had thrown out the case after looking at the evidence. The case now being run by a carreer feminist prosecutor.

    “(I don’t know Swedish law well enough to know if the “rape” charges being discussed are accurate equivalents to the charge which is being investigated).”

    You dont know the case well enough.

  15. CassanderaSays:

    “The shirt can say “Women Who Don’t Want To Be Taken Are Just Insecure”. It’ll clear a room faster than bad gas.”

    Actually I said men who have to talk about it and ask for permission are insecure and thats a clear difference. Also I am not talking about sex itself since clearly you dont go from “her interested” directly to sex. Since some people hare pretend that to be the case I´ll just describe how sex happens most of the time:

    You go from her seeming interested to physical contact initiated mostly by him (several steps), to intimate physical contact initiated mostly by him (several steps), to make out “initiated mostly by guess who” to leaving the party/bar for someplace private (your place or mine?) where the sex happens and most of the time her not needing or wanting to hear him say the “sexy” line “is it ok if I stick my c_ck in you now honey?” (regardless semantics)

    Maybe for a feminist obsessed with power-relations between genders that is a sexy thing to hear as it shows he defers to her worldview but for most girls it simply isnt. Most girls prefer the magic of the moment.

    As every initiation by him is responded by her she has lots and lots of chances to show whether she likes him or not. They do not need to talk about it. The only people in the world who believe this needs to change are feminist academics. The reason not being normal people ask for a change but most likely feminist theory wanting to use our sexual relations as a tool for changing power balance.

  16. hellkell:

    “Pete can’t tell the difference between man-bashing and mocking misogyny. Here’s a hint, Pete: they are two different things.”

    He knows that and pointed out which one of the two he sees here. Here is a hint: Misogyny is negative view on women in general, Misandry is negative view on men in general. Criticizing feminism is not the same as attacking women. Mocking common male behavior is the same as attacking men.

  17. Argenti Aertheri

    *does some googling on Assange*

    Aktivarum — you’re either even dafter than you seem, or intentionally misrepresenting the charges.

    Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.

    According to the statement, Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had “done something” with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

    The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.

    Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. “According to her statement, she said: ‘You better not have HIV’ and he answered: ‘Of course not,’ ” but “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before.”

    Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?

    In court, the nature of those allegations was finally made clear. The Crown Prosecution Service presented the four Swedish Prosecution Service accusations: two were of a specific Swedish crime called ”ofredande”, or misconduct (misleadingly translated as molestation), one being that the defendant ”pushed his erect penis against the complainant’s back, thus violating her sexual integrity”, the other for unsafe sex ”against the complainant’s explicitly stated wish”. There is one charge of sexual assault, which alleges that Assange had sex with Wilen while she was asleep, and the most serious charge is that he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her.

    The last accusation would qualify as a reasonable rape charge anywhere, the ”morning glory” almost nowhere; the other two depend on the detailed nature of the accusation, none of which has seen the light of day – the unsafe sex charge for example, does not allege non-consent, simply an earlier expression of opposition to the practice. Even with later consent, this can still count as a crime in Sweden.

    The Sydney Morning Herald appears to be saying that consent to sex is not a factor in the unsafe sex charge. And hmm, “unsafe sex” that sounds like the condom question is about STDs, not birth control, you almost managed to not peddle fish too! So close, and yet, nice red herring with the birth control question (did you think no one would google?)

    Maybe you’d prefer the charges from a Swedish source? The Swedish Wire lists the charges as —

    She told the court the first complainant, identified only as Miss A, said she was victim of “unlawful coercion” on the night of August 14 this year in Stockholm.

    The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.

    The second charge alleged Assange “sexually molested” Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her “express wish” one should be used.

    The third charge claimed Assange “deliberately molested” Miss A on August 18 “in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity”.

    The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

    Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?

    Shorter version — “The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.” — you lie, the lack of consent was regarding the risk of disease from unprotected sex. Also, I’m finding absolutely nothing on your claim about him looking at his computer after sex, plenty of conspiracy and funny, but not that one. Nor am I finding anything about the charges being dropped for more than a week. Perhaps things work differently in Sweden, but it isn’t uncommon in the US for a prosecutor to hand off a case; it’s certainly not weird for one prosecutor to shelf something and have another pick it up a week later.

    “You dont know the case well enough.” — either you don’t either, or you’re intentionally trying to mislead us on the dual assumptions that we don’t know the case and are too stupid, or lazy, to check. We can google just as easily as we can scroll up btw.

    As for your reply to Cassandra — what’s the “script” for anal? Do you just go for the ass and hope she doesn’t complain? How about BDSM? Just get out the flogger and hope she knows what you want her to do with it? Do you just start flogging her? Inquiring minds want to know!

  18. I see ArkTroll prefers the “strong silent rapist” approach, and that all sex is initiated by men at parties or bars.

    Talk about tunnel/rapist vision!

  19. Actually I said men who have to talk about it and ask for permission are insecure and thats a clear difference.

    Hunh?

    I don’t say a person (not the non-gendered pronoun) who fails to get consent (what you are calling permission) is “insecure”, I say they are rapits.

    It’s not a “semantic” distinction. It’s the core difference between willing sex, and rape. I don’t require that it be, “may I kiss your neck”, “now may I kiss your mouth”. but I do require that it not be against the will of the person. And I happen to think it is sexy when my partner asks me to do things. Not least because I know that’s the thing they want, and they aren’t going to be lose interest because they want more kissing and nibbling and I rushed to the slipping and sliding.

    I have to say yout sort of attitude is (from the reports of women I know) the fast track to not getting repeat engagements in the bedroom. And I fully expect you to chime in that “all kinds of women beg you to fuck them some more”. That’s a sample size of one. Maybe you are the bees knees at picking women who like “to be taken”. Even if so (and I don’t believe it), that’s not a rule for all women.

    I´ll just describe how sex happens most of the time:

    Most of the time? Really? You got a study size with a sample of larger than one? I’ll be glad to read it.

    As every initiation by him is responded by her she has lots and lots of chances to show whether she likes him or not.

    Likes him? No, likes the idea of sex. There is (as you keep saying) a big difference between liking the person, and wanting to fuck them.

    And if he is your “she really wants it, and has to pretend she doesn’t” we can be sure those chances to show “whether she ‘likes him’ or not,” are going to given careful attention.

    Or not. If not, then she gets raped and you say, “she really wanted it”. Just as you misrepresent the case against Assange.

  20. Argenti Aertheri

    Time for Spot That Fallacy!!

    “The idea is not met with resistance cause people like rape, its attacked on 2 points…”

    The resistance is either rape apologia, or these 2 points.
    These 2 points are true.
    Therefore it isn’t rape apologia.

    Ding ding ding! We have a formal fallacy! “Affirming a disjunct – concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B.[8]” (ironically, my email just dinged at me XD )

    “[bullshit about the case] However this causes problems, one obvious being a woman having sex and falsely claiming to be on the pill would be subject to the same law. The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.

    If women lies about being on the pill, would that be considered raping the man?”

    Not using a condom can’t be rape because then lying about being on the pill would be, because the problem is about the risk of producing children.

    1) Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality. — False pretense as it is actually about the risk of STDs, a risk on which the pill has no bearing.
    2) Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side — Fear of false rape accusations that is.

    Those are both types of red herrings btw. As is “Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous” as seen here —

    “Also the woman SW is terribly afraid for STD:s and this was the real reason for her being so distraught over the sexual encounter – this and him ignoring her in favor of looking at his computer. Not the sex itself.”

    Also, an ad hominem!!

    “The case now being run by a carreer feminist prosecutor.”

    “The only people in the world who believe this needs to change are feminist academics. The reason not being normal people ask for a change but most likely feminist theory wanting to use our sexual relations as a tool for changing power balance.”

    Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[44]

    Feminist is apparently a slur now?

    As for his whole theory about how sex works, perhaps in heteronormative non-kinky land? Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, trans* people, kinky people, queers of other assorted stripes…well we’ve all been doing sexytimes without a script for years now. And trust me when I say you’re going to need clear signs of consent for anal (“should I get the lube?” “yes” = clear consent). This lovely bit of failboating, saying that this is how sex should be?

    Naturalistic fallacy (is–ought fallacy[58], naturalistic fallacy[59]) – claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is.

    Even if that’s how sex always is for you, that says fuck all about how sex should be, and you get ad hominem points for trying to paint that as some strange feminist idea.

    Oh and no one is mocking “common male behavior”, we’re mocking your statements. Some of which are ev-psych BS that anyone with remote knowledge of psychology would mock, I got my degree in it. So yeah, it isn’t men, it’s you.

  21. Argenti Aertheri

    “I don’t require that it be, “may I kiss your neck”, “now may I kiss your mouth”.”

    Lol, that can be a fun game…at the very least, he must be having fairly boring sex.

  22. Argenti:

    “Aktivarum — you’re either even dafter than you seem, or intentionally misrepresenting the charges.”

    Or you are again interpreting things according feminist theory. However the Assange Case is an interesting subject. Since you are clearly the angel I can be the devils advocate.

    “Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated….”

    Which Assange disputes being the important part. But hey! Who listens to a “rapist”, never mind no rape proven yet. Treat his words as unimportant and her as undeniable.

    “Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.”

    She “went along” with it and “allowed” him to…. but she “wanted” not to. I guess she failed saying what she wanted and he failed mind-reading – On the condition we believe the story which the second prosecutor probably didnt cause of AA:s behavior afterwards having a shrimp-party to Assanges honor and writing SMS messages about how great things are being around the coolest smartest people. Also the part of AA at this party telling her friends Assange wasnt good in bed and offered him to her friend (police record). He is supposed to have raped her, yet she said he was bad in bed and offered him to her friend (risking her friend to be raped) How sisterhood of her! And very realistic.

    “Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had “done something” with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.”

    This not proven and also ripping a condom even if proven would not be rape. It would be more like lying about being on the pill. Should women lying about the pill be put in jail?

    “Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.

    He tried raping her? Failed, and then although he tried raping her she went into the same bed. Also this is the second woman SW and they had consensual sex “at least” once. Meaning several times later during the night.

    “Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no.”

    According to testimony from a friend SW was half-asleep when he started having sex with her. This is on police record her friend telling police what SW said. Thus she would not have been unconcious and the issue is him being unprotected. Also SW never went to police to press charges, and never wanted to. By all accounts she was tricked by AA who actually is close friend with one of the police officers at that station both being part of the LGBT-communitya and in pictures together.

    “she couldn’t be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. “She had never had unprotected sex before.”

    Second woman “letting” him. We start to see a pattern here. Women first have a strong opinion, then they are not acting on it in the moment and later they regret their actions. Both women had the opportunity to say no and choose not to (both presenting reasons for not doing it)

    “Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”

    AA: Accused of pinning, not proven – I will wait to see on that one as I have repeactedly told people her violence is rape! Assange is not a big guy and AA is not a little girl, clearly we should discuss if he even can “pin” her. Its not like physical power is his strong side. SW: According to testimony she was only half asleep. Thats the exact words from her friend, also nothing from her suggest she had a problem with the sexual act. Him not wearing condom was the issue and when he wasnt she – this time did not bother – although clearly she had the right to. She just could not bother doing it again.

    “two were of a specific Swedish crime called ”ofredande”, or misconduct (misleadingly translated as molestation), one being that the defendant ”pushed his erect penis against the complainant’s back, thus violating her sexual integrity”

    Yes, this not rape in any way and the penalty for this (in case he is convicted) being a fine. Also the reason they live is such a close proximity is her being his press agent promising him her small apartment for the stay in sweden and then changing her mind, coming back too early ending up with them both living in the tiny apartment.

    “the other for unsafe sex ”against the complainant’s explicitly stated wish”. There is one charge of sexual assault, which alleges that Assange had sex with Wilen while she was asleep, and the most serious charge is that he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her.”

    The one “asleep” according to her friend being half alsleep her having woken before him and bought breakfast she now back in bed. The one pinning very unlikely considering how she behaved later offering him to her friend and talking about cool and smart people. Also she tried to delete these “cool & smart people” messages when the case was underway.

    “The last accusation would qualify as a reasonable rape charge anywhere”

    Yes, it it was true. It would seem the second prosecutor did not find evidence supported this story at all.

    “the ”morning glory” almost nowhere”

    Not unless she was unconcious or was not allowed to end it when no longer wanting it. Then it would be rape.

    “the other two depend on the detailed nature of the accusation, none of which has seen the light of day – the unsafe sex charge for example, does not allege non-consent, simply an earlier expression of opposition to the practice. Even with later consent, this can still count as a crime in Sweden.”

    The other two may be crimes if proven, none of them qualify as rape. I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.

    “The Sydney Morning Herald appears to be saying that consent to sex is not a factor in the unsafe sex charge. And hmm, “unsafe sex” that sounds like the condom question is about STDs, not birth control”,

    Actually, in the police inquiry page 10 she talked worringly about getting pregnant and Assange joked about Sweden was a good country to have a child in, her replying if she was pregnant she would have to pay her student loands. Assange also koked about naming the kid Afghanistan . Here is a link to the entire enquiry, I cant do anything about it being in swedish I cant just tell you what it says and on what page.

    “So close, and yet, nice red herring with the birth control question”

    The birth control question is evident in the police inquiry, Assange joked about having little “Assanges” around in the world. This is very interesting as tricking people into parenthood mostly is done by women lying about being on the pill.

    “Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”

    Neither, I am informing you on the difference between “she says” and we believe. The second female prosecutor did not believe this after reviewing the evidence. The new third prosecutor “Marianne Ny” is known for feminist bias. She is specially appointed to change rape interpretation at “prosecution service development center in Gothenburg” – thus she effectively sits on two chairs in this case. One following the legal practise, while her job is changing the legal practise.

    “Shorter version — “The lack of consent being not for having sex – but for risk of producing children.” — you lie, the lack of consent was regarding the risk of disease from unprotected sex.”

    They talk a lot about her not wanting to be pregnant and he not having a problem with it in the police records. However maybe not all of them have been translated to english yet. That was one of Assanges complaints in England. The entire case was not presented in english.

    “Also, I’m finding absolutely nothing on your claim about him looking at his computer after sex”

    No not after sex, between make out and sex. First they make out (at cinema and in the park), then they take the train to Enköping, at the train Assange gives more attention to his computer then of her, when they arrive at her place she has lost interest it doesnt feel warm between them anylonger (Page 9-10)

    “Nor am I finding anything about the charges being dropped for more than a week. Perhaps things work differently in Sweden, but it isn’t uncommon in the US for a prosecutor to hand off a case; it’s certainly not weird for one prosecutor to shelf something and have another pick it up a week later.”

    Neither here but thats not what happened. At first a female prosecutor was called by police and immidiately by phone declared Assange a wanted man (This is when media got hold of the news) then a day later a female chief prosecutor (Second prosecutor) got the case sent to her summmer house by mail. After reviewing the case the chief prosecutor throws the case out and cancels the Assange Wanted order. Now he is no longer wanted at all and police will question him for molestation/misconduct.

    Around a week later carreer feminists (third current prosecutor) got hold of the case and again changed to rape/assault. Between these two events, Assange was not wanted at all.

  23. Ithilana:

    “prefers the “strong silent rapist” approach, and that all sex is initiated by men at parties or bars.”

    Since when is “mostly” and “all sex” even remotely compatible statements? I do not care about all sex, I talk about what is generally true. You talk about something like having two groups. One with 90 people, one with 10 and whenever we discuss the world nothing is allowed that those 10 do not agree on. The other 90 people completely and utterly unimportant.

  24. Howard Bannister

    Argenti, Aktivarum has a whole blog rife with conspiracy theories regarding the Assange case. (I’m reasonably certain they’re the same person) It’s largely the same thing he’s been posting here, but huge amounts of it.

    The rabbit hole. You just jumped head-long down it.

  25. Howard Bannister

    Since when is “mostly” and “all sex” even remotely compatible statements? I do not care about all sex, I talk about what is generally true.

    Hahahhahhhhhaaaahahaha… no.

  26. Argenti Aertheri

    Oh learn to read Swedish NWO, I said —

    “Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”

    “Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”

    So you can spin conspiracies and ad hominems about feminists all you like, they’re just extra large red herrings for that fish stew of yours. You had said “No, the core of the case against Julian Assange is him having sex with one woman SW unprotected and another woman AA (feminist politician) with a “ripped” condom.” — to which I provided multiple sources saying tht that’s a sack of shit, the actual issues are rape accusations. One even involving force, meaning, if they are true, he’s a rapist even by your defenition.

    Since neither of us is on the jury, it’s entirely fucking moot our opinions on whether the charges true, what’s relevant is you misrepresented them assuming no one would check.

    Some of that is just disgusting levels of victim blaming — “Assange is not a big guy and AA is not a little girl, clearly we should discuss if he even can “pin” her.” — No, no we shouldn’t. Pecunium’s the expert in such matters, but I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain to you how sheer mass is not, by far, the most important factor in fighting someone off.

    As for “they had sex at other times” there’s a damned reason that’s inadmissible in court here, it isn’t remotely relevant to the act(s) in question. If you give someone money for a cab today, does that mean they can just take your wallet to pay for a cab tomorrow? Clearly not. If they take money to pay for a cab and you, for whatever reason, give them money again in the future, does that mean you must’ve given them the money the time they took your wallet? So what makes sex so special?

    And that entire computer bit is nothing but a red herring, of course, this entire topic is nothing but red herrings. You made claims about the charges, proven wrong you, yet again, fall back to red herrings and shotgun argumentation. This would appear to be a pet project of yours, but guess what? No one here cares, he was charged with, among other things, rape, and is therefore an accused rapist, until the verdict is in that’s all we really know.

    Oh and also? You’re trolling, and massively derailing, the glossary.

  27. Howard:

    “Argenti, Aktivarum has a whole blog rife with conspiracy theories regarding the Assange case. (I’m reasonably certain they’re the same person) It’s largely the same thing he’s been posting here, but huge amounts of it.”

    So now its conspiracy theorist? Another bullshit label saying no more than “hater” while designating you as the moral and/or reasonable choice while not being clear on what the heck your side represent. Good attempt! Problem is, as I told above. I use the police original document from Klara police station in Stockholm.

  28. Howard Bannister

    “Argenti, Aktivarum has a whole blog rife with conspiracy theories regarding the Assange case. (I’m reasonably certain they’re the same person) It’s largely the same thing he’s been posting here, but huge amounts of it.”

    So now its conspiracy theorist? Another bullshit label saying no more than “hater” while designating you as the moral and/or reasonable choice while not being clear on what the heck your side represent. Good attempt! Problem is, as I told above. I use the police original document from Klara police station in Stockholm.

    “Hater.”

    Awesome! Suddenly you understand words have connontations!

    And you’re a liar.

  29. Argenti Aertheri

    “This is very interesting as tricking people into parenthood mostly is done by women lying about being on the pill.”

    Citation needed. No, really, really, needed, because here’s mine. “Twenty-five percent of the more than 3,000 women who participated in the nationwide survey conducted in 2010 by the National Domestic Violence Hotline reported that they experienced reproductive coercion”

    “19% reported experiencing pregnancy coercion and 15% reported birth control sabotage.”

    So first you need to show that men experience domestic violence at remotely the rates women do, and then you need numbers on the percent experiencing reproductive coercion. Also acceptable would be a study of men at planned parenthood, or a similar organization, something remotely related to pregnancy care or family planning. Internet polls remain a laughable source of information.

  30. Argenti Aertheri

    The entire idea that feminists control the courts? Yep, conspiracy theory. Here, have a definition —

    conspiracy theory, noun
    1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
    2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

  31. Maybe it would go away if it weren’t fed.

  32. Argenti Aertheri

    Also, nicely done there Howard, it would appear it is his blog.

    Fyi, there’s a reason courts use more than just the police report, police reports tend to suck. I used to work for a lawyer, I’ve seen more than my fair share of “what do you mean it’s not in the police report?!” (and I’m talking “wtf do you mean they didn’t get the accused’s name?!” level bad, ah civil court, how I loathe thee)

  33. Argenti:

    Here is a fun fact for you. You agree with the claim AA was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the rape?

    First she is claimed to have been pinned and raped by him, 13th of august

    Then she comes to work the day after for the LO-borgen seminar? 14th of august
    The same night she host a party in his honor. During the party she tweets:

    “Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb'”

    And then the 16th of august she has phone contact with Donald Boström, a journalist working with Assange who also was at the shrimp party. This is what he says about this contact with AA.

    ”Then, a few days later, she said that she had been lying to me and that she did have sex with Julian. She’d had sex with him right away. She said that she had the hottest man on the planet, and she was proud of it.”

  34. Argenti Aertheri

    hellkell — but he’s wrong! The ev-psych proves PUA “works” bits are hilarious, and I’m enjoying playing Spot That Fallacy! — not many of our trolls manage to get their own virtual game show XD

  35. Argenti Aertheri

    “Here is a fun fact for you. You agree with the claim AA was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the rape?”

    Arg, you really cannot read can you? I said, twice now —

    “Copied from The Guardian — so which woman was it where the only issue is that he didn’t use a condom? The one he’s accused of pinning, or the one who was asleep? Which of those is not rape?”

    “Charges one and four are unarguably rape if true, so are you defending pinning your partner? Or maybe having sex (raping) sleeping people?”

    So let’s fix your continued misrepresentation of my thoughts on this derail — “You agree with the claim AA alleges she was raped by Julian Assange the 13th of August (The night before the shrimp party) right? Thats the date of the alleged rape?”

    Really now, is this whole thing hard? Does Sweden not have “innocent until proven guilty” or something?

    I’m sure Boström’s testimony will be quite interesting in court, a court we are not currently in (nor will we ever be, me because I’m not a Swedish citizen and I hope Swedish law means you won’t either as you clearly have already decided the case). Also, this has fuck all to do with the claim that the case is all about a broken condom.

    You going to dig up statistics saying men experience reproductive coercion remotely regularly? My set took 5 min of googling to find. Or statistics on any of the rest of your claims, including, but not limited to — “women prefer to be ‘taken'”.

    (lol “‘”.” take *that* WP php!!)

  36. Howard Bannister

    The entire idea that feminists control the courts? Yep, conspiracy theory. Here, have a definition –

    Incidentally, I think his core conspiracy theory is probably correct.

    Not the feminists controlling the courts. That’s… well, yeah.

    I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.

    That’s a conspiracy theory. A theory based on a shadowy gov’t group controlling things they shouldn’t be able to. Yep. And I think it’s true.

    However, (remember that fallacy I mentioned earlier) that doesn’t mean Assange isn’t guilty. Certainly his behavior and his defences have raised my suspicions. But I know that the US government has very specific grievances against Wikileaks, and that they’re not above using something like this in a political way.

    Even if that’s true–that’s no excuse for engaging in rape apologia. Period.

  37. This one is primed to explode. I’d make popcorn, but I sense it’s going to be a particularly rapey explosion.

  38. @Hellkell and Argenti: One of the things it took me a while to realize is that a significant number of people here LIKE playing whack a troll (and after that, I got really into it myself–it can be very fun at times–not always, and there can be enraging things, and triggering things, and bullshit things). BUt yeah, I’d say Argenti and Pecunium are having fun.

    And it’s interesting to see how long ArkTroll will go to try to get the last word (*snickersnort*).

    I mean, he’s now claiming that there’s only one way “true rape victims” would behave despite the fact that there can be a whole range of behaviours.

    I doubt they’ll let him get away with it.

    And I’m about ready to start making book on how long ArkTroll will keep trudging back and blathering on even though he is convincing nobody, and he is not allowed the last word, and his fallacies are being documented, and his WRONGNESS shown for the enjoyment of the lurkers.

    Over and over and over and over again.

  39. Argenti:

    “Fyi, there’s a reason courts use more than just the police report, police reports tend to suck. I used to work for a lawyer”

    Fyi I have the same material the lawyers would have. The material leaked was the 100-page transfer from Swedish defense Björn Hurtig to UK Defense Mark Stephens and co-counsel Jennifer Robinson.

  40. @Argenti: I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.

    I tend to agree with you–rape charges against powerful men who support the status quo tend to disappear fairly rapidly, or are squashed before they’re even made.

    But Assange was tweaking the US’s proboscis.

    And that doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the acts he did, so yep, I agree.

  41. I think the CIA has it in for Julian Assange, and that these charges would have simply gone away otherwise.

    Quite possibly, but in the sense that a tiny fraction of rapes get a conviction, and Assange’s high profile bumped him into that tiny percent (which is what you meant anyway, yes?)

  42. Argenti Aertheri

    katz // Howard — I sort of agree with the CIA theory (and certainly that that has no bearing on his actual guilt) — the point is that the US really hates wikileaks (see Manning’s case). That the CIA thought the whole “chop off the head of a snake and the body dies” thing would work wouldn’t surprise me.

    Aktivarum — the exact transcripts of every deposition in there? If not then you do not have 100% of what the lawyers have. Do try to keep your terms straight, as you’d just said — “I use the police original document from Klara police station in Stockholm.” — which does not mean the same thing as “I have the same material the lawyers would have” — as, at least in the US, the prosecution/state has to turn over everything, while the defense has no such duty. So even if you have 100% what the state has, you very doubtfully have 100% what the defense has (because leaking their entire defense would ruin their case).

    Now, let me finish my ice cream, and then I’ll tear that victim blaming shit apart.

  43. Ithiliana:

    “I mean, he’s now claiming that there’s only one way “true rape victims” would behave despite the fact that there can be a whole range of behaviours.”

    Not at all true, it could possibly be argued I am claiming there is one way true rape victims would NOT behave though.

  44. Howard Bannister

    I tend to agree with you–rape charges against powerful men who support the status quo tend to disappear fairly rapidly, or are squashed before they’re even made.

    Quite possibly, but in the sense that a tiny fraction of rapes get a conviction, and Assange’s high profile bumped him into that tiny percent (which is what you meant anyway, yes?)

    More in the sense of the previous. People with loads of privilege tend to be more immune to rape accusations, not less.

    katz // Howard — I sort of agree with the CIA theory (and certainly that that has no bearing on his actual guilt) — the point is that the US really hates wikileaks (see Manning’s case). That the CIA thought the whole “chop off the head of a snake and the body dies” thing would work wouldn’t surprise me.

    Yes.

    But there’s something particularly CRASS and VILE about using a cases like this to further a political agenda.

  45. Howard Bannister

    Now, let me finish my ice cream, and then I’ll tear that victim blaming shit apart.

    Allow me at this time to offer the fondest of platonic affections for your next round of ‘whack-a-troll,’ in advance.

  46. Not at all true, it could possibly be argued I am claiming there is one way true rape victims would NOT behave though.

    Which is basically an entirely bullshit distinction without a difference that only speaks further to your ignorance and dishonesty. Nice try though. (Not really.)

  47. it could possibly be argued I am claiming

    Way to stand by your words, dude.

  48. And this guy wants to call other people insecure? HA!

  49. Too… much… text… I want to see where he claims that there is a way that “true” rape victims (women only?) would not behave, but I can’t scroll through the wall o’ text.

    katz, any predictions as to when this one will melt down, if ever?

  50. Argenti Aertheri

    “‘“Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.’

    She “went along” with it and “allowed” him to…. but she “wanted” not to. I guess she failed saying what she wanted and he failed mind-reading”

    First, here’s the full paragraph that quote is from — “Her account to police, which Assange disputes, stated that he began stroking her leg as they drank tea, before he pulled off her clothes and snapped a necklace that she was wearing. According to her statement she “tried to put on some articles of clothing as it was going too quickly and uncomfortably but Assange ripped them off again”. Miss A told police that she didn’t want to go any further “but that it was too late to stop Assange as she had gone along with it so far”, and so she allowed him to undress her.”

    So no, not “she failed saying what she wanted” more like “she didn’t fight back hard enough” — which is neither required by law, nor by decent people. Demanding a level of fighting back beyond trying to put on clothes and having “[him] rip them off again” is rape apologia. Also, quoting out of context like that? Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.[27]

    Re: the shrimp party that she was hosting — she was the host, only someone making excuses for rape would find it odd that she didn’t make a (big enough?) fuss. Plenty of rape victims do not report their assault within the <24 hours she had to decide whether to cancel the party and have to explain to a bunch of mutual friends what happened.

    Re: “coolest smartest people” — there were other guests at this party yes? So she might not have been including him? Whether she still finds other friends cool and smart has absolutely no bearing on whether she was raped.

    “Also the part of AA at this party telling her friends Assange wasnt good in bed and offered him to her friend (police record). He is supposed to have raped her, yet she said he was bad in bed and offered him to her friend (risking her friend to be raped) How sisterhood of her!”

    Weren’t you complaining a few days ago about how terrible women are and how they need to be isolated from their friends to prevent them “cock blocking”? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    “And very realistic.”

    “This not proven and also ripping a condom even if proven would not be rape. It would be more like lying about being on the pill. Should women lying about the pill be put in jail?”

    This continues to be a red herring as neither case is only about a broken condom, one is alleged to involve force, the other alleges she wasn’t even awake! In no world, except that of a rape apologist, is having sex with a sleeping person, while using birth control, not rape. The birth control and condom question? More red herrings, you hilarious peddler of fish.

    “‘“Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when “he agreed unwillingly to use a condom”.’

    He tried raping her? Failed, and then although he tried raping her she went into the same bed. Also this is the second woman SW and they had consensual sex “at least” once. Meaning several times later during the night.”

    *bangs head against wall hoping to get as dumb as this troll* Let’s put this on a made up timeline to make it clear (all times pulled out of my ass since you cannot understand chronology) — they go to bed, say at midnight, he wants sex without a condom, she says no, he agrees with her no, they fall asleep; at least once during the night, say 3 am, they wake up, have sex that they both agree to, with a condom; at some point thereafter she wakes up to him having sex (raping) her without a condom. This is what she is alleging, not that made up to suit you order you claim.

    And even if she were saying he raped her and then they had consensual sex? That wouldn’t prove it wasn’t rape, and if she consented later out of fear he’d rape her again? That’d make all the sex in question rape. But since he controlled himself until morning, only the one act is relevant to the charges.

    If I keep replying to every one of your completely fallacious arguments one by one, we’ll all be here all day. Since none of us want that, I’m going to pick out some of the most absurd ones.

    “According to testimony from a friend SW was half-asleep when he started having sex with her. This is on police record her friend telling police what SW said.”

    Half-asleep =/= awake enough to consent. Not consenting = not consenting.

    “Second woman “letting” him. We start to see a pattern here.”

    Yeah that you repeatedly have seen wearing her down with coercive tactics to be just a’ok. It’s why we’ve been calling PUA rapey from the first day of this inanity.

    “Both women had the opportunity to say no and choose not to (both presenting reasons for not doing it)”

    FFS both of their reasons for “not saying no” where they’d already said it, or physically tried enforcing it, repeatedly. To steal a line from Cliff Pervocracy, does she needs a marching band playing “I do not want sex”?

    “Not unless she was unconcious or was not allowed to end it when no longer wanting it. Then it would be rape.”

    Neither of them wanted it in the first place. The first says she tried dressing and he pinned her, whether she could’ve maybe fought him off is entirely irrelevant — the second had made it clear, repeatedly, he did not have her consent without a condom, and also, she wasn’t awake enough to give consent (certainly not the “implied consent” you’re claiming).

    As to whether she could’ve fought him off, freezing and/or dissociating, is a goddamned common reaction to being assaulted, of any sort, but particularly sexual assault.

    “I have never said Assange was a great guy doing nothing wrong. The case is about defining rape in ways that can be proven. Which actually helps real rape victims cause police do not have infinite resources and most cases doesnt even reach the courts.”

    And now you try backpedaling into plausible deniablity land? Yeah we get a lot of that around here, it won’t work. You’re initial point was that it’s “all about a broken condom” which has now been proven false so many times over that you have no choice but to resort to “I’m just playing devil’s advocate”. You claim to want to help rape victims while flat out repeating many of the tropes used to blame rape victims and revictimize them. You are helping no one but yourself, rape apologists, and rapists.

    A peddler of fish is the least insulting name I have for you at the moment, you disingenuous, falliacious, derailing, peddler of fish.

  51. Dracula:

    “Which is basically an entirely bullshit distinction without a difference that only speaks further to your ignorance and dishonesty. Nice try though. (Not really.)”

    There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.
    Saying how people are likely to act and saying how people are not likely not act – not the same thing.

  52. Argenti Aertheri

    “Not at all true, it could possibly be argued I am claiming there is one way true rape victims would NOT behave though.”

    Oh and which of your multiple claims would that be?

  53. Argenti Aertheri

    “But there’s something particularly CRASS and VILE about using a cases like this to further a political agenda.”

    Agreed, it only increases the chances he’ll walk even if he’s completely guilty as charged. (And the whole “get wikileaks!” theory sure didn’t work any if that’s true)

  54. Howard Bannister

    There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.
    Saying how people are likely to act and saying how people are not likely not act – not the same thing.

    No.

    You’re auditing the reaction of a victim, and saying ‘if she didn’t act X upset, it wasn’t real.’

    Wrong.

    False.

    Untrue.

  55. Argenti:

    “Let’s put this on a made up timeline to make it clear”

    You got the “made up” part right. Not only is the timeline made up however, the entire description you give is based on crap sources guessing what is in the police inquiry.

    “(all times pulled out of my ass since you cannot understand chronology) — they go to bed, say at midnight, he wants sex without a condom, she says no, he agrees with her no, they fall asleep”

    No they dont! There is a long intimate naked foreplay, he then loses interest and goes to sleep. She now feels rejected and confused for him not wanting to continue. She sits up SMS:ing friends trying to understand what went wrong while he lies snoring

    “Suddenly, Julian said that he was going to get some sleep. She felt rejected and
    shocked. It was so abrupt: They had engaged in a very lengthy foreplay, and then —
    nothing. She asked what was wrong; she did not understand anything. He drew the
    blanket over himself, turned away from her and went to sleep.

    “at least once during the night, say 3 am, they wake up, have sex that they both agree to, with a condom”

    “She must have dozed
    off; for, later she woke up and they had sex. Earlier, she had fetched some condoms
    and laid them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom, although
    he muttered that he preferred her to latex.”

    “at some point thereafter she wakes up to him having sex (raping) her without a condom. This is what she is alleging, not that made up to suit you order you claim.”

    “They fell asleep, and when they woke up they may have had sex again; she does not
    really remember. He ordered her to fetch him some water and orange juice. She did not
    like being ordered about in her own home, but thought “what the hell”

    She went shopping, they then ate breakfast

    “They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again
    and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his
    penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She
    immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said
    to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”.

    And finally

    “She said to him: What if I get pregnant? In reply he merely said that Sweden is a good
    country to have children in. She said jokingly that, if she is pregnant, he would have to
    pay off her student loan. On the train to Enköping, he had told her that he had slept in
    Anna Ardin’s bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he had sex with Anna. But he
    said that Anna liked girls, that she was lesbian. But now she knows that he did the
    same thing with Anna. She asked him how many he had had sex with, but he replied
    that he had not counted. He also said that he had taken a HIV test three months earlier
    and that he had had sex with one girl afterwards, but that girl had also taken a HIV test
    and was not infected. She made sarcastic comments to him in a jocular tone. She
    believes that she was trying to minimize, in her own mind, the significance of what had
    happened. He, on the other hand, didn’t seem to care. When he learned the size of her
    student loan he said that, if he were to pay so such money, she would have to give
    birth. They joked about naming the child Afghanistan. He also said that he should
    always carry abortion pills that were actually sugar pills.”

  56. Howard Bannister

    They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her.

    So you admit you were lying?

  57. Argenti Aertheri

    Exactly one sentence in that narrative is relevant — “They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her.”

    That’s legally rape.

  58. Argenti Aertheri

    “He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that were actually sugar pills.”

    And that’s just disgusting. All that adds to “he not only doesn’t care about his partners health, he is perfectly willing to impregnate them by deception” — if even only that one line is true, no woman anywhere should ever go near him again.

  59. Ah, the old “sleeping women can’t say no” gambit. Yeah, that is totally not rape.

    /sarcasm

  60. ArkTroll is a deep mining troll: he just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper and deeper….go, TROLL!

  61. Argenti Aertheri

    Oh and my narrative may’ve been off on the details, but the order, the only part I was actually speaking of, was correct. Unlike your claim of —

    “He tried raping her? Failed, and then although he tried raping her she went into the same bed. Also this is the second woman SW and they had consensual sex “at least” once. Meaning several times later during the night.”

    You said he tried raping and then had consensual sex, I corrected that they had consensual sex and then he raped her, to which you nitpicked over who fell asleep first like that has any bearing on anything at all.

    Can I interest anyone in some slightly burnt popcorn for this rapetastic derail?

  62. I can’t estimate; it could be soon, but this one is indefatigable and might just blather on forever.

  63. You seemed to have missed this
    ““Steinem controls exactly one person, herself, anyone is free to ignore her, there’s no feminism cabal that’ll throw people out for not taking her advise”

    If you believe this you dont understand how women are controlled”

    Isn’t obvious that women are controlled by Gloria Steinem, who is controlled by the CIA, who is controlled , by the Soviet Union, who is controlled by the Bavarian Illuminati.

    Us Trolls are controlled by the Servants of Cthulhu.

    Pecunium and silver, which group are you controlled by?

  64. And by the way Pecunium, re fatherlessnes a long way back in this thread, unmarried parents is not the same as single parents (many are cohabiting).

  65. Argenti Aertheri

    talacaris — I’d have said Cthulhu but you beat me to it. So I’ll apparently have to spill the beans and confess that it’s Malkav.

  66. There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.

    I’m not playing this game, you pedantic, lying asshole. You’re spitting hairs to avoid addressing the actual point. AGAIN.

  67. There is a huge difference between saying people act only ONE way and saying people can act several ways except ONE.
    Saying how people are likely to act and saying how people are not likely not act – not the same thing.

    First, dude, do you realize that your actual literal argument here is “a double negative is TOTALLY different than a positive”? “I’m not saying all rape victims would cancel the party they were supposed to host the next day after being raped! I’m just saying all victims would not NOT cancel the party!” Even for the trolls we get here, that’s pretty damn stupid.

    Second, may I ask where you got your advanced degree in psychology and the methodology of the studies you’ve conducted on this subject? Because, see, I’ve talked to actual experts on trauma, and they all agreed that not only is there no one universal response to trauma, but that trying to pretend nothing happened is among the most common and well-documented initial responses. Since you’re presenting a view entirely the opposite of theirs, surely you must have done at least as much research on the subject, which I’m sure you’ll be happy to cite for us. I mean, you’d have to be pretty dumb to try to dispute other people’s lived experiences just by imagining what you think you would do in the same situation and deciding that your imaginary response is more real than their real one!

  68. I’m not saying Aktivarum is an asshole. I’m saying he’s not not an asshole.

  69. I’m kinda torn about this here troll, I gotta tell ya. On the one hand, I’d dearly love for him to shut the fuck up.

    On the other, the fool damns himself further with every post. He’s misogynistic rape apologist gift that keeps on giving. You couldn’t make up a more perfect illustration of the inherent dishonesty of his ilk.

  70. *He’s the

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,348 other followers

%d bloggers like this: