Here’s the bravely anonymous alpha blogger behind “Danger & Play ~ An online magazine for alpha males” explaining “Why You Should Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” I’ve bolded my favorite bit:
Haters will tell you to, “Man up! Break up with your girlfriend if you’re not happy.” They are missing the point. You want to have your cake, and to eat it too. Steady, reliable pussy and the occasional strange is the best of all worlds.
Cheating is a lot of fun, and it’s something I highly recommend. It’s way more exhilarating than bungee jumping, and few things feel as good as banging your girlfriend on the same day you banged some strange.
Cheating keeps your game tight. The best way to regulate your girlfriend is knowing you can bang chicks as hot or hotter than your girl. Well, when you cheat, this isn’t hypothetical. It’s reality.
Somehow I’m guessing there’s a lot more “hypothetical” than “reality” going on in this guy’s posts.
You don’t want an exclusive relationship? Fine. There’s no law saying you have to be in one. You can date casually and non-exclusively. You can have an open or polyamorous relationship. There are a lot of people out there in relationships, yet happily fucking other people outside of them. They’re just above board with it.
But that’s not what’s going on with our PUA friend here. With his talk about “regulat[ing]” girlfriends, he seems more interested in fucking over his girlfriend (assuming such a creature really exists) than he is in fucking strangers (sorry, “stranges”).
That’s not “Game.” That’s just being a dick.
But, hey, Nietzsche! He’s BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! Or, as he puts it in a comment, “Shame and guilt are beta.”
You know, if you have to go around telling everyone what an Nietzschean ubermensch you are, you’re probably aren’t much of a Nietzschean ubermensch.
Reminds me a scene from The Fifth Element:
“Where is the robot to pat you on the back?”
He also needs to look at recent Supreme Court rulings, because the 4th amendment is being chipped away. Indiana’s supreme court (Barnes v State of Indiana) recently ruled that a citizen does NOT have the right to block a police officer’s illegal entry into his home. Their rationale for this is that such illegal entry can be dealt with through the courts after the fact.
And the US Supreme Court recently ruled (Kentucky v King) that the smell of marijuana is enough to allow a warrantless entry into a person’s home. This stems from a case in which a suspect fled police by entering an apartment building. As the cops went door to door they smelled marijuana and entered the apartment of a random guy who was NOT the suspect they were looking for.
And FYI, Brandon, it is conservative attitudes towards criminal justice that lead to rulings such as this, so don’t even try blaming feminists for this shit.
I feel as if something very bad must have happened to Brandon as a child. Abandonment, abuse, neglect. His lack of empathy and trust and his devotion to “his needs” are startling. I feel bad for him, in a way.
What I really feel bad about is his apparently lack of legal understanding. And his refusal to answer Cassandra’s questions is telling.
Jules
Brandon, putting aside for a moment the immorality of what you’re proposing, I remind you yet again that this plan of yours WILL NOT FUCKING WORK. IT IS A STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE, DANGEROUS PLAN.
Brandon, suppose you went on a hunting trip off in some remote location with a friend. (I know you probably don’t have friends because they might, at any moment, commit some kind of crime against you, but let’s pretend.) Let’s say you’re hunting big game, maybe moose or elk, so you’re using guns that could easily kill a person. You’re out in the wilderness, looking for moose, and no one else is around.
Suddenly, you realize that your friend is holding a weapon that could kill you. You have no reason to think he would kill you; he’s not behaving in any kind of threatening way, but trust can be broken–it happens all the time. You, also, are holding a weapon that could kill someone, and you’re pretty sure that you could kill your friend in a way that would look either like self-defense or an accident.
Do you kill your friend? After all, your life is more important than his, and it would look like an accident, and he could snap and kill you at any time.
“I feel as if something very bad must have happened to Brandon as a child.”
Yeah, I don’t even know where to start with this. I’ve had great relationships and ones where I’ve looked back and realized how stupid I was, but he seems incapable of trusting *any* woman.
And having love and trust in your relationship is like going out without locking your door? I don’t even have a witty comeback for that.
Re evidence:
The tapes might be allowed, in fact they probably would be. The issue of “illegally obtained” (and so “fruit of the poison tree”), generally only applies to the state.
A persons criminal taping can be used as evidence in defense of an unrelated crime. It doesn’t, however, get one any immunity from the crime of illegally recording them. It would also be a stupid prosecutor who gets them admitted into evidence in a way that doesn’t create a confession to the illegal act of recording.
So you might beat the rape charge, but at the cost of a guaranteed conviction for the taping, which will probably also contain elements of a sex crime. So permanent sex-offender status would be pretty much a given.
Minsk: Gorb…
Gorb: Vat!?
Minsk: Gorb. Dis iz turnink into vun of dose plans…hyu know, de kind vere ve keel everybody dot notices dot ve’s keelin’ people?
Gorb: It is?
Minsk: Uh huh. And how do dose alvays end?
Gorb: De dirigible iz in flames, everyboddyz dead an’ I’ve lost my hat.
Minsk: Dot’s right. Und any plan vere you lose you hat iz?
Gorb: A bad plan?
Misnk: Right again!
From Girl Genius
@ Brandon:
In plain English: How would you feel if you found out your partner was videotaping you during sex without you previously knowing?
You know, if you’re so paranoid about rape that you have to video your casual encounters, then maybe you should just stop having casual encounters. I mean, who could enjoy sex under those circumstances?
Excuse me, I meant to say: “about false accusations of rape.”
“I mean, who could enjoy sex under those circumstances?”
I think Brandon is immune to this argument. If it meant something to him, he’d stop. Right?
And apart from everything else we’ve been telling Brandon, his recording scheme may not even work for its intended purpose. Unless he records himself all the time, 24/7, a woman hell-bent on making an FRA against him can always say he raped her seconds after that recording cut off; that he raped her in the elevator, on the stairs, in the parking lot. So at best, a tape would provide some evidence of consent that the jury may or may not regard as a source of reasonable doubt, but it wouldn’t be an absolute defense to a rape charge. So let’s recap: going to jail as a sex offender is a very high price to pay for somewhat aiding your defense against a rape charge.
Right, Amused. There’s no end to it.
What’s really disgusting about the tape situation is the fact that there’s been more than one gang rape case of teen girls in which their rapists video taped the assault and the case STILL ended up in aquittal. So this idea that the law is stacked against him on this issue is absurd.
Amused: Re the sex with the corpse. There was a guy in Canada (NorthWest Territories, IIRC), who raped a woman who was passed out cold, near a bar. This was the dead of winter.
At his trial he offered the defense that he couldn’t have committed rape because he thought she was already dead.
He lost, but the defense was… novel.
Pecunium: His Public Defender or Legal Aide or whatever the Canadian equivalent, lawyer must have been a kid just out of law school. They come up with the craziest legal theories.
But, Brandon, false murder and false robbery convictions are just as common as false rape convictions. If fear of false rape convictions warrant you committing a variety of crimes, why so very little concern for these things? After all, if you had a girlfriend and she was murdered, you would likely be one of the first suspects (not just because you are a sociopath, but because women who are murdered are disproportionately murdered by their partners). Why aren’t you constantly documenting yourself to protect against such an occurance? Don’t you need an alibi every second of every day?
Also, I did suggest that if you want to be a paranoid creepo and tape all of your sexual encounters that a solution to the criminality issue would be getting consent to tape the people first. All you need to do if you insist on taping every single sexual encounter you have is get permission from every person you have sex with to make such recordings. I mean, then you wouldn’t have to break any laws or violate the rights of your sex partner and could still engage in your obsessive, disproportionate paranoia.
Guys! You’re making it worse! Brandon is gonna go around with a tin foil hat tomorrow cos of you people lol.
Setting aside the fact that Brandon’s little video plan is a staggering moral, legal, and practical failure, I do have a question about evidentiary law. My understanding was that the rule excluding illegally obtained evidence only applied to protecting a defendant from unconstitutional actions of the part of police. I thought that the prosecution was in fact allowed to bring witnesses whose only knowledge of the case was a result of illegal activity, and I would imagine that a defendant would similarly be allowed to produce evidence which may have required a crime to obtain.
I may well have misunderstood or been misinformed, so I was wondering if there’s a lawyer here who could offer an opinion.
I don’t usually comment here, but something occurred to me and I am interested to see if I can get an MRA’s thoughts on it. Sorry in advance for the long post.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that a man who has completely consensual sex with a woman runs some risk of being accused of rape afterwards, and that this risk is so great that it isn’t reasonable to just ignore it, and that there is no way to minimize the risk by being more conscientious. I see three kinds of ways that a person can manage this sort of risk:
1. By making some compromise personally in exchange for taking on less risk, like not sleeping with strangers, or not drinking when you’re out. Most people do this to some degree most of the time, but in certain cases it shouldn’t be necessary. A person shouldn’t have to live a compromised life in order to not be the victim of a crime.
2. Transfer the risk onto somebody else, like by secretly videotaping sexual encounters. Most of us find this morally unacceptable, because you are not only transferring all of the risk onto somebody else without their consent, but that person actually gets no benefit from the reduced risk! You haven’t actually reduced the total risk at all, you’re just satisfied that it’s on somebody else, not you.
3. Reduce the total risk without hurting anybody. This could take the form of awareness campaigns that teach women and girls not to falsely accuse, or by eliminating false accusers’ motivations (AFAIK, with genuinely false accusations, this is usually fear of abuse from a family member or spouse). This way, risk is reduced without anyone having to live like a hermit, or having to violate others in order to protect themselves.
Anyway, obviously these three approaches can also be applied to rape prevention. Generally, anti-rape activists are all about approach 3, partly but not only because it actually works. Then you get MRAs and concern trolls who object that the only reasonable thing is approach 1 and that approach 3 is just a way to weasel out of responsibility for…something? I have never seen anyone, anywhere, advocating approach 2 as a way of protecting oneself from rape. Most people consider this so unethical that it cannot be justified, but clearly some commenters here feel differently, and I would especially like to hear their thoughts.
So, if people who don’t want to be raped should just abstain from alcohol, dress “modestly,” and not go out at night, why isn’t approach 1 sufficient for those who fear false rape accusations? And if approach 2 is an acceptable way to protect oneself from false accusations, is it also an acceptable way to protect oneself from rape? If not, why not?
But manipulable. If you are such a computer whiz then why wouldn’t I think you’d doctored the video?
@Dracula
Hey! Dot’s vat Hy said! Und hyu don’t geet a nize hat like mine every day!
You’ll have to submit your long form consentual sex agreement for examination.
Another thing: approach 2 does have a clear advantage over the others if you really hate the person or people that you are transferring the risk to. One would think that if feminism were primarily about misandary, then we would see a lot of feminists urging women to install hidden cameras under the guise of rape prevention.