70
GC Social MediaWoman fights Tim in Olympic ring. Lasts 46 seconds
The Italian woman had trained her whole life to get in that ring. Two quick head shots by the Tim, and the fight was called for the Tim who will now advance. Men beating women physically is now an Olympic sport. Disgusting.
https://x.com/fairplaywomen/status/1818959981527417058
FULL VIDEO https://x.com/ReduxxMag/status/1819023215609455052
I have seen thousands of men go from ‘just there with their mates’ or ‘just curious’ to merrily raping away with no compunction, simply because their friends were doing so and it was all guys together. They’re the same guys who’d kick off if a paedophile moved into their street or talked to their daughter, but raping a child they’ve paid for is totally different, apparently. Or they have wives and kids and would never do that sort of thing…apart from this one time, but let’s pretend that never happened, what goes on on tour stays on tour, right?
There’s always an excuse for why it wasn’t really rape, or why it was okay for them to do it. There’s never an excuse for not doing it though, certainly not one their friends will accept.
I don’t trust lone men either. Then they really think they can get away with it, because no-one else knows.
Perhaps this is the outcome of CSE, but I have zero trust in men. And yes, I’m in a long-term relationship with one and I’d like to think the best of him, but I don’t know that I can. Not after all I’ve seen. Not once did any man say no. Ever. No matter how violent or fucked-up the proceedings got. Men from all walks of life, of all ages and races. I’d love to discover that some men would refuse, but I’m yet to witness one doing so, and I spent many years in some form of sexual exploitation or another. Actions speak louder than words, and male actions are loud and clear.
In gang rape scenarios, there's often a ringleader and at least some reluctant men, but the reluctant men still do it. Sometimes it feels like the foundation of homosocial behavior in men is hatred and abuse of women.
I'm sorry to hear about your experiences.
I think you are 100% correct about men.
I would like to think that you never met a man who would have said no, because men who would say no wouldn't go into a brothel in the first place.
But the knowledge that any man who does go in will go on to commit unspeakable depravities says a lot, really.
I wasn’t in a brothel, that’s the thing. I worked for a pimp who also sold drugs - and me. So it was basically ‘want sex too?’, or just word of mouth with friends of friends and went from there. All horrifyingly ‘normal’ guys.
Damn.
I could tell myself that all men who enter brothels are just shit, but drug consumers ... that is a way broader group, and the two things only have in common that they're illegal (in some places ...) so it seems it is really just the law that keeps men from raping.
Depressing.
The law where I am now seems to not care about any of it - or rather, the law does, but enforcement doesn’t. So many women and girls I knew in similar situations flew under the radar for years, despite the police and social services knowing. Shortage of money, or shortage of empathy? Maybe both. It’s scary how many men had wave it all away though. Usually as us wanting or choosing to do it. Feels better for their guilt, I suppose.
There's been studies on this, and I have good news!
It's only 50% of men who report that they would rape if they could get away with it! (Ok, the other 50% could be lying, but let's not be so negative about it, ok?)
(30% admitted they would rape if they could get away with it, 50% admitted the same after masturbating to porn. If we assume that 20% of men are lying, then 30% could still be non-rapists. Yay, I guess?)
But yeah, it is bleak.
50% is actually a lot lower than I expected to be honest
Well, it is only the number of men who admit to it.
And the studies were like:
10 percent of men admitted they would rape. 30 percent of men admitted they would "force a woman to have sex"
And the other study, with the 50%, that was after they had them masturbate to porn. Can't remember what the question was worded like, there.
If you asked men if they would rape enemy women, you might be in for a nasty surprise, admittedly, considering how much of a difference the way the question was worded made.
Can you link this study? Because these self-report studies tend to often have very serious methodological flaws, I never trust them until I see the methodology and survey items myself.
I only have a link for the ten to thirty percent study: https://jezebel.com/1-in-3-college-men-admit-they-would-rape-if-we-dont-ca-1678601600
The sample size is very small, that's the one flaw I was able to find.
As for the other study, it was cited in the book "Warum es so schwer ist, ein guter Mensch zu sein" (Why it is so hard to be a good human being) by Armin Falk, if I recall correctly, and I haven't been able to find it on the internet.
I rather fear reality is even bleaker than those studies indicate, as, after all, a sizeable percentage of the men could be lying.
Thanks for the response. I haven't heard of Armin Falk, but I'll be sure to check it out. (But I'm probably going to have a low profile for the next month or so since I'm traveling, but I'll be sure to follow-up after if I find anything relevant or interesting). Thanks again! =)
Yes, they would. They wouldn't lose any sleep over it if there were no consequences to themselves.
My mom recently came out and almost said that yes, all men would be rapists.
(We were talking about a case where two young men had knocked an elderly woman unsconscious and then raped and murdered her, shortly after World War II, and one of the men was caught and sentenced to death. During his trial, an expert declared him to have a bad character, as per the retelling of my mom, and I was like "yeah, no joke, I wouldn't have needed an expert for that, he deserved death" and my mother was like "But you need to see that in context, he grew up during wartime" ... and I was like ... so what?)
I am honestly shocked.
She accuses me of black and white thinking, which, yes, I probably do that, I have autism, after all, but also ... I'm right? I mean, perhaps I sometimes simplify complicated matters, but this is a very clear-cut case, isn't it?
My mom tried to argue that I would be different if I had grown up during war, which ... yes, that is correct, I bloody damn hope I would ruthlessly kill rapists, while, as things are, I am a soft-hearted softie who carries flies and spiders outside instead of killing them ... but no, I would not rape. And I hope I would not torture. (And I am confident I would not torture anyone who isn't a rapist.)
I guess we need to look for the truth between the lines. My mother would never admit that "all men would rape in the right situation". But she apparently thinks that, if a man rapes, he was driven to it by ... the right situation. Not by just being a bad apple.
(My dad didn't comment, which I am kinda glad of, because if HE thought it only natural that a man would start raping after a childhood in a war-torn country, I would be scared of him.)
I think some women need to hold to this thought that only if something truly horrible happens, planets align, then maybe some men rape, that it's this 1 in a million chance. But your dad has been with men alone, he has heard the locker room talk, he knows it's lack of opportunity not upbringing holding many back.
Well, I am as in need of happy delusions as they come, and it gives me more peace of mind to imagine that most men are good people who would NOT suddenly start raping if there was a war. Especially with a war seeming rather likely at the moment.
But my mother has very strange opinions overall, probably driven by the need to be perceived as good person. (If I told her that I don't want refugee males from wartorn countries to be allowed on the streets unattended, since their traumatic pasts could have turned them into rapists, she would most certainly consider me a total monster. So if a man rapes, it must be due to his traumatic past, but we can't assume that men with traumatic pasts might be more likely to be rapists. She's a very assertive woman who takes no shit from anyone, so her showing those handmaiden traits in old age makes me really concerned.)
like in the rape of Nanjing?
Wartime extremes bring out the worst savagery in some (probably most) men; but prove the bravery and heroism of others—some of whom are the ones You'd least expect, like the ranking Nazi Party apparatchik who sheltered hundreds of Chinese from the atrocities at Nanking. We rlly don't know the deepest darkest corners of anybody who hasn't been thrown into an equally deep and dark situation.
BTW names of historical events, especially disasters/atrocities/battles with large death tolls, are not normally 'updated' with revisions of place names. So, this genocide should be known in perpetuity as the Rape of Nanking, even though that city is now called Nanjing.
As two examples that might be more intuitive, the WW2 Battle of Stalingrad will be remembered as the Battle of Stalingrad forever (not retconned into the "Battle of Volgograd"), and the Chernobyl disaster—which happened in 1986, when Ukraine was a Soviet SSR—will alws be known as "the Chernobyl accident" (using the Russian spelling for the place now officially called Chornobyl, in Ukrainian).
The nazi dude seems to have been okay with women being raped in concentration camps. (Granted, he probably did not see this - otherwise he likely would not have been so naive as to ask Hitler to stop the atrocities in Nanking)
We rlly don't know the deepest darkest corners of anybody who hasn't been thrown into an equally deep and dark situation.
Thanks to genderist ideology, I think I have a pretty good idea of just how many people are totally okay with rape. (Basically every genderist is for men in women's prisons. Do the maths.)
Some of the people we think are good could turn evil, in dark times, sure, but of all too many ... we already know who they are, we just prefer to not believe it.
Granted, he probably did not see this
He did not. Rabe moved to Nanking to manage the local headquarters of Siemens in 1908—before WW1 (let alone the Weimar years, the rise of Hitler, or Nazi hegemony)—and did not set foot on German soil again until 1938, after the Rape of Nanking, when he permanently moved back to Berlin and got a quick education in the brutal realities of his own party.
He joined the nazi party without ever seeing what they did in his homecountry? Wow. That seems kinda stupid, but of course that was before the internet, and what got to China was probably only that they're a nationalistic leaning party.
Yeah, intercontinental correspondence was both terse and infrequent in those days.
The NSDAP was not even founded until 1919—eleven years, one world war, one global plague, and a slew of nationwide general strikes after Rabe left Germany for China—so Rabe's entire conception of Nazism would have been entirely based upon whatever snippets of [mis]information the party brass had felt like writing in its telegrams to him.
Pre-Nazi-takeover Siemens was an unusually progressive company for that era as a whole, too. By the standards of robber-baron-period industrial conglomerates, it was almost radical in the 1920s. (The intervention of the Irish Cumann na nGaedheal government—half of the merger that later became Sinn Fein—to prevent Siemens from raising its Irish laborers' wages was the kind of thing that would definitely have become a viral meme if it had happened in this century.) That context also helps in understanding how somebody in Rabe's position could have had the views he had.
Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure which is correct. I thought they were different romanisations of the same name
You're quite correct: The revision from "Nanking" to "Nanjing" came from the 1979 adoption of Pinyin-based romanization for rendering Chinese names into English—the same 'update' that most famously changed "Peking" to "Beijing", and that radically transformed Cantonese names (e.g., Canton itself —> Guangzhou).
Even in cases like this (especially in cases like this!), historians keep the old geographical names when referring to events that live in infamy—mostly just to preserve history as accurately and literally as possible, but also for symbolic reasons vaguely analogous to "don't raise the dead" / "disturb not the ghosts of yesteryear".
The deep-seated discomfort that I personally feel when anachronistically modern geographical names are inserted into the names of historical evils and tragedies—which is why I "well akshwallee"d You on this name (I'm not normally one to nitpick words, grammar, etc)—is recognizably close to my gut reaction when woke museum staff decide to trans fhe dead.
Yes. The only thing that keeps any of them from not raping is the miniscule, rare consequences if they are caught and convicted.
I truly believe only faith in a hell and something superior to them (God) prevents most men from raping.
Which is why I find atheist men who don't have strong humanist beliefs to be the most selfish/willing to abuse women for pleasure.
I'm proposing a pattern for us to criticize.
I'm not judging anyone here for their religious or not beliefs.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Some of the cultures with the highest rates of rape are very religious
Those cultures believe women are objects. My Islamic upbringing for example: Prophet married a 6 yr old and had sex with her at 9 Women are beneath men Prophet had 9 wives and 2 sex slaves Between a man and a woman the devil makes a third It is halal (ok) to have sex with war prisoners
So that religion basically condones rape
However many people with bad aims, who don't actually believe in religions that object to rape, use them for power and access
Religions can serve as a means to reduce stranger rape.
Pretty much all of them are in favour of marital rape, though, so even with men following the teachings of their religion, they will rape their wives.
(To be fair, Catholicism allows women to opt out of marital rape by becoming nuns. And Christianity introduced the idea that a woman's consent to the marriage is needed, so I guess that is something.)
I don't think so.. mennism is learned, we're still human underneath and some have empathy.
Rape is absolutly a cultural thing. It's learned.
Why is it that males across so many species are violent and rape the females of their species?
Seconded. I think too many feminists are still too naive about male nature.
The nice, gentle males were likely less reproductively successful than the ones happy to rape. The ones who were too aggressive and rapey (i.e. rampantly and opportunistically raping the females of other males) were probably murdered and taken out of the gene pool too, but the "norm" that was settled on is still, let us say, disadvantageous in a multitude of ways to us human females.
Remember: men almost universally think a smile is a come-on and that friendliness is flirting. They tend to, as a sex, over-estimate themselves more frequently and with more severity than women. They are very good at clinging to self-serving delusions about everything, which is easier than ever to see now with the manosphere--how many men do you see these days taking responsibility for any of their own behaviours? They just blame other people. Take all of these traits together and understand they are cross-cultural. There are probably strong biological imperatives toward this behaviour.
Saying it's all a learned behaviour is getting the causation backwards. Patriarchy is the way it is because men are the way they are, not the other way around.
Perhaps it's that species culture as well.
We humans like to think of ourselves as the best most amazing not actually animals beings.
We literally are just animals, so it's not far fetched to believe that animals also have a social culture.
Whales do, the other great apes do.
Maybe it's harder to observe in other species, but I believe that culture is the main driving factor towards rape.
No, I know at least two that would not bc they would not go to war, but just would never. For every Stanford swimmer rapists, there were 2 men that also stopped him and reported it. Notably, they were not from the US, if I remember correctly.
Is that about the case where two men from Sweden cycled past an US male who raped a woman behind a garbage container and intervened?
Idk, perhaps the knowledge that the people of their home country would look down on them if they knew that they let a rapist rape unhindered had something to do with it.
(I feel the fact that they were not from the US, but from a country that has the Nordic Model, might have something to do with it. )
They did not let him rape "unhindered"; in fact, once they recognized what was happening, they literally tackled him to the ground and testified against him. https://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/swedish-cyclists-stanford-brock-turner-sexual-assault-1.3622706
I know I'm not a native speaker, but I thought my post was clear?
Those men knew that IF they had let him do it, all of their fellow Swedes WOULD be disgusted at them.(Hypothetically. If they knew. But I am sure a lot of people have that inner voice that tells them what their friends would think of certain actions.)
Hence why they could not let it happen.
The situation might have been different if they'd been from a country where at least the men would have cheered the rapist on.
How would anybody even know that they rode by? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I am sure a lot of people at that party saw what was happening and did nothing. We do not know their names. I agree that their being Nordic made them more responsible than US citizens but not out of fear of being shamed.
When the invasion of Ukraine began and knowing my country might be next any moment, one fear was the soldiers but another just the men who live here. In case of invasion, all forces are taken up, there's no one to call for help, no one will come to rescue for mere rape, no one will take swabs and seek out to persecute the attacker.
I really do believe if they could, if they knew they'd get away with it - so many more would. I really like to think it's below 50% but knowing the porn consumption rates...
It would be way above 50%. Men change the definition of "rape" all the time to suit their sexual behaviours. If there were no consequences, most males would rape, and rape happily and repeatedly.