So pickup artist and rape legalization proponent Roosh V has, he says, filed charges against a woman who allegedly threw beer in his face outside a Montreal bar on Saturday night. That’s his right, of course.
But reading the statement he says he gave to police, I was struck by the tone of wounded innocence that runs through it. In the forum post on the subject, sounding a teensy bit like a stereotypical 19th century Southern belle overcome with the vapors, he complains about being “attacked” by the woman and her friends “after I was seduced by a young woman.”
In the statement he says he gave the police, Roosh affects a tone of indignation at the allegedly deceptive behavior of this young Jezebel.
I talked to one girl of the group who gave me the name “Jennifer.” She complimented my beard and general attractiveness and asked me to come outside with her for a cigarette. She is approximately 23 years old, shoulder length hair, brown hair, brown eyes, and slim build. She has a piercing between her nose like farm bulls have.
It’s called a septum piercing. You do live in the 21st century, do you not?
I went outside and sat next to her. She began sensually rubbing her legs against mine. Her skirt was short.
That hussy! Getting him all hot and bothered with her “sexy legs” before tossing a drink in his face.
After the beer-toss, Roosh reports, the alleged assailant and her friends followed him down the street,
yelling vulgar language. One girl yelled, “Eat my cunt.”
Heavens to Betsy! A woman referred to her delicate vagina flower using a very rude word!
Apparently, in Roosh’s world, only men are allowed to use that word. He and his followers certainly use it often enough.
A search on his blog for the word “cunt” returns 305 results.
In a post entitled “The True Nature of Women,” for example, Roosh writes that
within every woman on this planet, regardless of her education or background, is a bitch, a cunt, a slut, a golddigger, a flake, a cheater, a backstabber, a narcissist, and an attention whore that is dying to get out … .
In one called “It’s Your Fault That American Women are Winning,” he demanded of his readers
When was the last time you put an Americunt in her place?
He seems to like that particular portmanteau. On his site Return of Kings, he published a post titled “A Perfect Example Of The Americunt.”
Meanwhile, a post on RoK titled “American Women Are Only Good For One Thing” declares that
[m]ost of today’s women are bitchy, masculine, selfish cunts with inferiority complexes that make them think they want to dominate men.
The sad truth is that decades of feminism has reduced women to nothing more than three holes and a set of tits who are only as good as the orgasms they provide men.
In “Why You Should Avoid Dating Girls Who Claim They Were Raped,” another RoK writer informs us that
[e]ven the most manjawed cunt secretly harbors fantasies of locking down a good man, marrying him, and thereby trebling her disposable income. Chicks will cry rape if it means endless, adoring attention with zero associated cost. But they won’t if they think getting raped renders them unattractive in the eyes of men.
In other posts, RoK writers complain about “empowered femcunt doublespeak,” “Sheryl Sandberg-clone femcunt[s] …who have brought into the myth of office-cubicle empowerment,” and the sad fate of men who have “a cunty controlling bitch of a wife.”
I could literally spend the rest of the day providing more examples of “cunt” usage from Roosh and his friends from his two main blogs. If I started searching his forum as well, I suspect I could be at it for the entire week.
In other words, I’m pretty sure Roosh has heard the word before.
Were any woman to post a police report like the statement posted by Roosh, she would quickly be accused of “damseling” and worse by dozens if not hundreds of MRAs and PUAs and other assorted misogynistic woman-pesterers online.
And they’d call her a cunt, as well.
One of the differences I’ve noticed between the way women and men look at a situation is that women tend to be very sensitive to the social context of the situation whereas men tend to take a legalistic “well, throwing a beer on him IS technically assault” view. This is one of the problems with defining rape and sexual harassment, because men are socialized to ask “what is the rule that tells me what I can get away with” and to be relatively clueless about the context and the observable reactions of others. Had to be Dead between the Ears is arguing a typically male technical point of view — “she set him up and then doused him” — without understanding that we are talking about an admitted rapist and professional rape instructor. Context, Dood — it means something.
Actually, I wonder if wearing the wig constitutes fraud. A person cannot give sexual consent if fraud is being committed. In that case Roosh is guilty of sexual assault and disguise with intent.
Pretending not to be Roosh specifically because you know women don’t want to have sex with Roosh certainly sounds like fraud (though IANAL).
I nominate HTBS’s trollery in this thread as the worst gotcha attempt ever. Did he really think we would agree to defend a rapist just as long as she self-identifies as a feminist? This proves once again that MRAs don’t understand the concept of intellectual honesty.
Well there you go- another thing to add to the list of crimes Roosh is committing on his Canadian tour.
This is amusing, HTBS sets them up and y’all knock ’em down. I wish I had popcorn.
Following on from GOSJM’s point about legalism vs context there’s two ways of looking at this.
We could do a complete forensic analysis of the matter. We could discuss whether beergirl’s actions amount to entrapment, we could consider the definition of assault and we could have a scintillating discussion around the use of force in self defence and defence of another.
Or we could just say that, whatever the legal position, there’s no comparison between an active pro rape dickhead advocating his vile and dangerous views and a woman giving said dickhead a bit of a swilling.
I imagine wearing a wig in general to get laid wouldn’t count as fraud (for instance, if you’re bald but wear a wig, someone couldn’t accuse you of rape because you turned out to be bald). But the whole point of rape-by-fraud is that it’s rape if you’re someone they wouldn’t want to have sex with but you pretend to be someone they would have sex with (eg, husband/boyfriend). Which sounds like it would cover Roosh.
Or you could say Beergirl is a vigilante. What’s on tap in Montreal? Justice.
@Katz- agreed- he was clearly wearing a wig to disguise his identity, not for fashion.
So I guess the consensus is that Roosh V can be assaulted by anyone at any time, because of what he has written on the web.
Right?
@ Katz
To be pedantically legalistic (cf Grumpy’s point), in England it only counts if the fraud is to make the victim think it’s someone *personally* known to the victim rather than *not being* a particular person. Don’t know what the situation is in Canada.
So I’ll just fall back on my “Good on yer girl” argument I’ve expressed previously. I rest my case.
@HTBS
Wrong.
The consensus is that you are an asshole.
@Had To Be Said
That depends: Would it be considered assault if I throw my drink in your face for being such a fucking douche?
I love how getting some water splashed on you is “assault” to the MRAs. Oh you delicate little fragile things, you.
The rape(s) that Roosh has committed are not something that was “written on the web”. They happened in meatspace. Why the constant dishonesty?
@htbs: I think the consensus is no one feels that badly Roosh got a face full of beer, especially considering the laundry list of crimes he has been committing in the form of hate speech, criminal harassment, and the possibility he committed assault on that woman. In fact, cases of assault have been acquitted in Canada because the harm to the accuser is so negligible- what happened to Roosh is mild enough you would actually need a court of law to prove it was assault.
Had To Be Said: Okay real talk here. You claim that you are not a misogynist so why do you spend all your time defending the character of a self admitted rapist? What is it about him that you like? Why do you blame women for defending themselves against him?
Had To Be Douche is just angry the filecabinet of assault charges they’ve filed against people throwing their drinks on them haven’t been taken seriously.
Or he’s angry that the straw-feminist hivemind isn’t asserting itself, since he’s hellbent on this idea that we’re all looking for a Roosh to assault.
Congratulations @HTBS! You win the award for ignoring all context to defend the rapist!
Not only do you minimize his crimes yet again by only acknowledging what he has “written on the web” and ignoring his real life rape in order to bolster your defense, but you ignore that the was attacked by a “mob” because he (an admitted rapist) went to a bar that had forbidden him after he gave a lecture teaching other men how to rape with the sole purpose of targeting drunk women for rape.
Are you on manosphere sites scolding them for the rape and death threats they make against feminists and for defending those who do make the threats?
Not that I expect an answer because you’ve ignored every other question I’ve asked you.
But I did Google your name + RoK and AVFM and in my admittedly short search I didn’t see evidence of you on their comment sections.
If I had to guess, you are a manurespherian but post here on a separate username/account so you can pretend to be the totally neutral potential ally who is just so appalled by our terrible actions and meanness.
I’m reminded of our old annoying neutrality troll Anand from last year? Anyone remember him? He eventually admitted to donating to Paul Elam for the men’s rights conference “security” but claimed he only did it because feminists are sooooo mean.
That was in a later thread but here was where he first appeared. https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/05/30/is-the-mankind-initiatives-violenceisviolence-video-a-fraud/comment-page-2/#comment-500022
OK, for real: Getting a drink thrown on you is the stereotypical thing that happens to a dude who “strikes out” with a woman at a bar or club. So even if the woman in question was wrong to do so, Roosh should have been prepared for that eventuality.
@weirdwoodtreehugger- omg it was YOUR FAULT the guy decided to side against equality. Had you only loved him a little more, maybe gave him soft words of encouragement, he would have seen the light. But YOU are ruining equality by not being nice to the people who don’t believe in it!! For shame. Smile a little more, for god sakes. And would it kill you to put on some make-up?
In the sense that a guy from England, of English descent, is No True Scotsman.