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.
@Sharculese: Ya, and Republicans are annoying to Democrats. What’s your point? That anyone with an opposing viewpoint is spoiled?
That should read:
“Yeah, Brandon I wasn’t asking for you to…”
If I were a prosecuting attorney, Brandon, I’d raise three points in court:
-This is a man who’s demonstrated he doesn’t have much regard for the law nor for the consent and autonomy of his partners.
-We don’t actually know what this recording is of. It could be of a different incident than the rape, or it could be a completely different woman, or he could have made her make it with a knife to her throat.
-He clearly expected to be facing rape charges and prepared for this trial, and that’s kinda sketchy right there.
Ethics aside, revealing your secret tapes when accused of rape would make you look worse than if you just argued “she’s lying and there is no physical evidence” (and there wouldn’t be, on account of how you didn’t actually rape her, right?) and you’d very likely be acquitted.
If you understand the difference, Brandon, then this is the first time you’ve indicated as such. And to repeat Nobinayamu’s question, if all you need is to tape a woman giving consent, why do you think it’s such a smart idea to tape a sex act without your partner knowing, especially since the former is perfectly legal and the latter totally isn’t?
Ya, and Republicans are annoying to Democrats. What’s your point? That anyone with an opposing viewpoint is spoiled?
nah, dude, it was that acting like you’re proud of being annoying is childish. that thing i um… said… in the post you… responded to…
Really, Brandon? Because earlier you said they go from 2% all the way up to 40%. Tell me you’re not pulling stats from your ass!
@Nobinayamu: I care about her consenting to sex, not me recording it (audio or video).
@Holly: That is why video tapes have timestamps on them and I think you can add a timestamp to audio recordings to if the device supports it.
I think the audio would be able to show if she was under duress or not.
Ya, cause anyone that goes out of their way slightly to protect themselves is expecting it. I lock my door because I want to get robbed.
@Lauralot: for the same reasons scientists don’t tell people what the true purpose of a study is for…so they don’t fowl up the numbers. When someone knows they are being taped, they behave like actors instead of their normal self.
Lauralot – Although it’s not as creepy as secretly recording sex, if a man insisted on me taping consent before sex, I’d assume he was planning on turning off the tape recorder and doing something horrible.
It wouldn’t make me think “Gosh, I was going to false-rape-accuse him for my own amusement because apparently I don’t get cable or something–but now my plan is foiled and we’ll just have to have regular sex!”
It would make me think “He’s going to use this to convince a jury that I consented to everything that could possibly happen tonight, and I don’t want to fucking know what his ‘everything’ includes.”
I hate it when numbers get “fowled” up. Birdshit and feathers are impossible to get out.
@Hellkell: Yes I did say that, but those numbers aren’t really conclusive now, are they? There is a big difference between 2% and 60%. You might as well say you are going to die tomorrow or 10 years from now.
Now 60% is an option? OK, dude.
In some cases yes, but the more common case is someone who looks for very drunk people and targets them knowing that they will be easy to rape and hard to believe if they tell. (Did you not read the Lisak quote?) If someone goes out looking for someone who’s vulnerable, and then takes advantage of that vulnerability, that’s not calculated according to you, Simon?
But that seems really easy. (I know Simon’s still working on pre-101 level thinking, but try to keep up.) In fact, let’s take it in a different direction. Most but not all perpetrators of alcohol facilitated rape are calculating predators. Let’s look at a case that (I’d argue) didn’t necessarily involve predators or preparation: In a pretty famous case from NY state, a woman and her date were out drinking heavily at a bar. They were about to leave; the man went out to the car, and the woman went to the bathroom. Both passed out. Four men at the bar found the woman, took her to a booth at the back of the bar, and raped her. They got off, incidentally, because the jury found that she had been so drunk that it was possible she had consented and just didn’t remember it.
So, being gang raped was her fate? Is that what you get out of the story? Or do you get something like this: Not respecting others’ personal and sexual autonomy, even (and perhaps especially) when they’re in a vulnerable position is a particularly shitty thing to do, and people who do that are scum?
I just have to worry about someone who’s so intent on shifting blame to victims that he’s willing to disappear rapists.
Not only can you add a timestamp to recordings, you can add any timestamp you want.
Plus, hey, maybe the timestamp is accurate, and the rape occurred at a different time. Or if it’s only consent you’re recording, maybe she really did consent but didn’t realize that you’d then do other acts she hadn’t consented to.
I think the audio would be able to show if she was under duress or not.
Just the fact that you’re making this sort of calculations regarding your sex life is giving me the fucking willies. “I’m so hot for you, baby–now say you consent to sex into this microphone and if you sound nervous we’ll have to re-record.”
And no, it’s not always obvious. Some people have pretty good acting skills.
But you do let trusted friends into your house. Do you figure they’re still all going to rob you?
@HellKell: Obviously MRA’s are going to oversell it and make the claim that 40-60% of rape charges are false. While on the other hand feminists are going to downplay it as much as possible, and that is why the low number is 2%.
In the end, the truth usually lies between these two numbers. I would be willing it is in the range of 15-25%.
But Brandon, she can consent to both. Yes, dude, I get it. You want to have sex. Most of us enjoy sex very much and want to have as much of it as we can with as few negative consequences as possible. Why violate her -and it is a violation both ethically and legally- if you don’t have to?
@Nobinayamu: In a society that is under constant surveillance, I don’t see my little audio recorder as me violating her. She isn’t being harmed physically, so I see no issue with it.
Not only can you add a timestamp to recordings, you can add any timestamp you want.
Plus, hey, maybe the timestamp is accurate, and the rape occurred at a different time. Or if it’s only consent you’re recording, maybe she really did consent but didn’t realize that you’d then do other acts she hadn’t consented to.
I actually think this is kind of crossing a line the accused still have rights, and it’s the prosecution’s job to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Speculating about other sexual encounters and deliberate forgeries that you don’t have evidence for doesnt meet that burden, and it’s not something I think a responsible prosecutor should be doing.
You know that there are credible studies and research that you can access right? Do you know how that works?
In a society that is under constant surveillance, I don’t see my little audio recorder as me violating her. She isn’t being harmed physically, so I see no issue with it.
I’m going to have this professionally calligraphied on like really nice paper and mail it to every libertarian i know. no signature. no explanation. just this.
@Holly: Well, I can’t sleep with her on my front lawn now can I? So I sort of have to let her in to the house. Also, I have had people I don’t trust completely in my house. You know what I do? I watch them and don’t leave them alone (it’s typically one or two family members that have problems stealing or trying to fuel their drug habit).
I also, don’t keep my wallet in plain sight of girls that I just met. I learned my lesson when I woke up and all my cash was gone.
I don’t have any reason not to trust the girls that come into my place, but I also don’t trust them with important things like cash or trusting them not to lie.
I know you don’t have a problem with it. You don’t care about informed consent; I get it. That you don’t consider it a violation doesn’t magically make it not a violation in either the eyes of a potential partner or the law.
I’m asking you why? Why would you violate someone legally placing, placing yourself at risk of being charged with a sex crime and having all manner of bad things happen to you when you could just make it a playful sexual joke, get everything you need to verify consent, and have sex without breaking the law, violating a partner, and still having sex.
What you want to protect yourself from conviction in the event of a false rape accusation –so you claim- is evidence that the sex was, in fact, consensual. You don’t need to secretly record the entirety of a sexual encounter to procure that. So why would you want to do that?
Men could always start doing this:
http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422
Actually, there’s probably a better way to find the correct answer than taking a wild stab at it. You could do some research. I have.
One comprehensive article recently compiled all false accusation studies. The results ranged from 1-point-something to 90 percent. According to experts most of these figures are based on unreliable sources. What it comes down to in most experts’ minds is Kanin versus a bunch of other studies that put the number at 8 percent or below. When you look at Kanin (his 1994 study of one Midwest town put the figure at 41 percent), you see a bunch of problems with his methodology. He’s relying on police conclusions, not on their investigations. There’s never been an attempt to recreate or test or check the results (there’s no way to do it, since Kanin hasn’t released much information about how and where he conducted the study), and there’s some implication that police treatment of the victims was at least kind of intimidating, especially if you know how trauma works.
So, on the other hand, there’s a whole crapload of rigorous research studies that put the number at between 2 and 8 percent. These studies are bigger, they’re more widespread, they’re testable, and they used consistent definitions for false reporting. And they all found more or less the same thing. 2-8 percent.
Sharculese – True, those aren’t points that would lead to a conviction, although I do think anything that suggests to a jury “he expected to be accused of rape” would lean them a bit toward suspicion.
They’re more point that would come up in my mind if a guy tried to record my consent.
@ Brandon: scientists don’t tell people what the true purpose of a study is for…so they don’t fowl up the numbers.
In the US, any researcher using human subjects who uses deceit in the process has to ONE, describe the rationale for it in an Institutional Board Review proposal, and TWO, explain how the participants will be told the truth afterwards.
Trufact: I was chair of my university IRB, and am currently heading up my department IRB (and will soon be chairing my college IRB).
This has nothing at all to do with the actual ethics of what Brandon who is NOT a scientist OR a researcher but probably had a class with one one time is actually doing, but good grief, I hate like fuck to see that kind of misinformation spread about.
It’s Brandon’s main discursive purpose of course–to blather on about stuff he knows shit about, but this touches on an area of my expertise.