-
You asked and we delivered! AMPReviews now provides the option to upgrade to VIP access via paid subscription as an alternative to writing your own reviews. VIP Access allows you to read all the hidden content within member-submitted reviews AND gives access to private VIP-only forums in each city. You can upgrade your account INSTANTLY by visiting the Account Upgrades page in your own user profile and using a valid credit card to purchase a subscription. You can get to this page by clicking the link in any review, by clicking the red "See the Details Now" banner on the home page, and by clicking the Purchase Private Details link in the navbar at the top of every page
Rapey or Not Rapey: Christmas Edition
- Thread starter BrettKavanaugh
- Start date
A couple of related quotes from a very smart dude who had a lot to say about the highest form of man(that is, the Ubermensch):
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions."
Nietzsche
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions."
Nietzsche
100% yes. I know how fucking stupid I am. And I absolutely believe we can learn something from everyone. I used to be a misanthrope when I was cocksure and young. Now I'm just sure I'm a cock...and old.
I'm glad you feel glad.
I mean, you've had no substance in your replies. Just similar retorts like, no you're not. I know you are but what am I?
Anyway, obviously you're incapable of taking a step back and thoroughly analyzing the substance of what I wrote(and you're going to say that I'm incapable of it - though I could've been more tactful about it) so you carry on and so will I. We can leave it at that and just be cordial. Cool beans?
Hypothetically, yes.
With no convictions, what will you stand for? What would you fall for? (To paraphrase lyrics from "Hamilton"). And there are certainly things we must stand for, no? i.e. human rights.
To blindly follow conviction (and I guess I would posit the same side of the coin to be 'faith'), would be dangerous.
I would argue that convictions (depending on said convicitions) are not more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. But we can start another philosophical thread if you want.
I'm glad you feel glad.
I mean, you've had no substance in your replies. Just similar retorts like, no you're not. I know you are but what am I?
Anyway, obviously you're incapable of taking a step back and thoroughly analyzing the substance of what I wrote(and you're going to say that I'm incapable of it - though I could've been more tactful about it) so you carry on and so will I. We can leave it at that and just be cordial. Cool beans?
Hypothetically, yes.
With no convictions, what will you stand for? What would you fall for? (To paraphrase lyrics from "Hamilton"). And there are certainly things we must stand for, no? i.e. human rights.
To blindly follow conviction (and I guess I would posit the same side of the coin to be 'faith'), would be dangerous.
I would argue that convictions (depending on said convicitions) are not more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. But we can start another philosophical thread if you want.
@Uniquelyme
Thanks for your first response. While I strongly disagree on some of your points (but agree with others), I want to especially thank you for responding sincerely and not resorting to name-calling or suggesting my views are clouded because I'm "too emotionally invested" or whatever in these women I've never met in my life (technically, I met Sara once for 10 seconds). At least in that first response.
I'm going to split my response up - there's stuff that has to do with this paticular case. And then there's the general stuff. I think that stuff is important, so I'm thinking of starting a new thread later to address those questions - I mean, c'mon at this point this thread has dragged and meandered so there are probably only 12 dudes left reading.
Guilty as charged! Well, I don't really love to. I am strangely compelled to. Too many thoughts. That's MY neurosis. And now you have more to read.
Sure, fine, agreed. They're equally bad. Delete "if not worse". I have reasons in my mind why it might be worse, but it's not clear cut and that would be distracting to get into all that. TBH, I'm starting to regret having added that violation to the more serious ones, it probably did distract from my main point. I really didn't want this to be about just one review, because there are universal lessons to be learned here. And those were the reviews I remembered. I've asked the mods to delete that section, but I think they're all in Hawaii this week or something.
Disagree
It's not sociopathic to be harsh on looks. It's rude, but not sociopathic. I've been harsh on looks. I've been rude. In those 10 seconds I met Sara I found several girls more attractive to me and chose another girl. (Although I thought she aligned with some of her pictures pretty well). This was different. The way he was harsh on looks is pretty clearly tied up with the whole psycho-vibe thing. It's all part of the package of dehumanization and the domination. I tried to articulate how they're linked, how this is different, but perhaps I failed. But I feel it in my bones as did most of the other commenters. I invite others who felt that way to also try to articulate that connection.
But let's not get too focused on that component. The looks were just the appetizer. Then we have the imagined assault. And then the money shot: "she served her purpose, I urinated and left". That was chilling. If you weren't chilled, you should ask yourself why were you not chilled.
Please. First of all I never said it should be censored. I did say it probably should be locked. I'm actually ambivalent. I mean I keep bringing it up, so clearly I'm not censoring anything.
But I directly addressed this in the original post. I know, I know, it's a long post, and attention spans are limited. But it's addressed directly. Let me restate. In some ways, I think it's good if the review stays up there. Let it stay up there and let everyone see: this is what a sociopathic review looks like - and then let them see how most dudes correctly identified it as such. That's how free speech works - both ways. Just like James Madison told us. If you have the right to post a rapey review, I have the right, and frankly the obligation, to say you're a fucking psychopath and that's a rapey review. Should I be censored when I say that? And if an idiot defends the psychopath by shouting "simp" or "you can't get laid for free" like a 12-year old, I in turn have the right to say you sound like a 12-year old, grow the fuck up.
Agreed! When this review first came out, I was like 15th in line in saying it was a bit much. I was probably the most "respectful" of these critics. Dude even liked my post and said something like "I respect it". I gave him waaaaaay too much benefit of the doubt even though it was right there in a furiously flashing neon that something was terribly terribly wrong. Put it this way, you basically just said: the airplane crash could be impacting your view that there was a design flaw in the engine. When I terribly misjudge something, I ask myself: how did I get it so wrong? Why didn't I see the clues that other people saw? Lots and lots of people. Or if I saw the clues, the flawed design, why did I minimize them? Maybe I shouldn't have dismissed those concerns by saying "you engineers are too emotionally invested in these airplanes". How can I get it right the next time?
What do you do in that situation?
Whoa, this one is fraught. You're wrong and you're right.
Let's start with where you're right.
I now think it probably didn't happen as he described. Let's set aside whether Sara could have/would have clamped down if she had wanted. My hunch is if this really happened as described and she had felt intolerably violated she probably would have pushed him away or shouted for help. Though even that is hard to say, she's made her choice about how to survive and navigate this life. That doesn't mean it's truly consensual. Well there's a whole murky area of quasi-consent and exploitation....again, that's another thread. This case is not murky.
But now I think he gets off on the idea that she wasn't consenting, and fantasized as such. He probably made up that little nugget. Just like he fabricates quotes from Victoria. Someone showed me other posts where it's crystal clear he gets all jazzed up by comparable little violations of consent. (I don't know if "little" is the right word, they are still significant). Part of the thrill. Now, is fantasizing and making up a story about sexual assault and presenting it as real any less fucked up or any less psychotic than actual sexual assault? I mean, in a legal sense, yes, of course. But again, my main point here is not to convict this particular sociopath for what really happened in the room - we can all stipulate it was probably just an extended boring bj - but to talk about his language. The language glorifies his imagined assault. The language is soaked in dehumanization. And the language could encourage the next sociopath. That's what guys reacted to.
Now let's go over where you're wrong and Beatnik is right.
You have a phallic-centric perspective, and consider your own worst-case scenario. From her perspective, what happens after that? Dude may not be completely incapacitated. Well, I don't know, thankfully it's never happened to me. And actually that point is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is what the girl BELIEVES will happen. In that situation, the guy is going to use all his might to get her to let go. That means a brutal beating. Who is going to risk that? Plus, who wants a disembodied bloody dick in your mouth? Luckily, you have us manginas here to enlighten you on the other half's perspective.
Excellent! You are halfway on the road to enlighenment. Since we now have Neitzche in the thread, I'll also invite Master Kong, aka Confucius to this party.
Zhizhi wei zhizhi
Butzhi wei buzhi
Shi zhe ye.
What you know is what you know,
What you don't know is what you don't know
This is true knowledge
Oh! So close!
Now that you've made it clear that you, as a man, can't truly know what's in a woman's mind, I can't help but wonder - why should we believe anything you say on what a woman truly wants? How do we know they love to be dominated? I'll ask you to take a step back......are YOU sure you have her implicit consent? How do you know? You're a man, after all. Yes, yes, I'm sure you'll regale me with tales about women creaming and screaming as you dig them out and hotel staff propositioning you etc etc. And those are good clues! Assuming you're an accurate reporter. But not every woman is wired the same. Like I said above, power and sex are linked in strange ways, and it's all a jumbled mess. Some women get off on the domination. Some don't. Again, ESPECIALLY with the young Japanese girls who are not conditioned to push dudes away or scream for help. Many of whom can barely muster the strength to say "excuse me....a little bit". How do you know they're OK with everything you're doing? You're a man, how can you know?
I ask myself that question all the time. I don't have a perfect answer. But we all should be asking ourselves that question all the time.
And for the love of god, we should not be joining in any celebrations (or finding "nothing wrong") of non-consensual acts, be they imagined or real. Or praising writing about girls as if they are, at best, rag dolls who serves their purpose, or at worst equating girls to a toilets.
Thanks for your first response. While I strongly disagree on some of your points (but agree with others), I want to especially thank you for responding sincerely and not resorting to name-calling or suggesting my views are clouded because I'm "too emotionally invested" or whatever in these women I've never met in my life (technically, I met Sara once for 10 seconds). At least in that first response.
I'm going to split my response up - there's stuff that has to do with this paticular case. And then there's the general stuff. I think that stuff is important, so I'm thinking of starting a new thread later to address those questions - I mean, c'mon at this point this thread has dragged and meandered so there are probably only 12 dudes left reading.
Guilty as charged! Well, I don't really love to. I am strangely compelled to. Too many thoughts. That's MY neurosis. And now you have more to read.
Sure, fine, agreed. They're equally bad. Delete "if not worse". I have reasons in my mind why it might be worse, but it's not clear cut and that would be distracting to get into all that. TBH, I'm starting to regret having added that violation to the more serious ones, it probably did distract from my main point. I really didn't want this to be about just one review, because there are universal lessons to be learned here. And those were the reviews I remembered. I've asked the mods to delete that section, but I think they're all in Hawaii this week or something.
Disagree
It's not sociopathic to be harsh on looks. It's rude, but not sociopathic. I've been harsh on looks. I've been rude. In those 10 seconds I met Sara I found several girls more attractive to me and chose another girl. (Although I thought she aligned with some of her pictures pretty well). This was different. The way he was harsh on looks is pretty clearly tied up with the whole psycho-vibe thing. It's all part of the package of dehumanization and the domination. I tried to articulate how they're linked, how this is different, but perhaps I failed. But I feel it in my bones as did most of the other commenters. I invite others who felt that way to also try to articulate that connection.
But let's not get too focused on that component. The looks were just the appetizer. Then we have the imagined assault. And then the money shot: "she served her purpose, I urinated and left". That was chilling. If you weren't chilled, you should ask yourself why were you not chilled.
Please. First of all I never said it should be censored. I did say it probably should be locked. I'm actually ambivalent. I mean I keep bringing it up, so clearly I'm not censoring anything.
But I directly addressed this in the original post. I know, I know, it's a long post, and attention spans are limited. But it's addressed directly. Let me restate. In some ways, I think it's good if the review stays up there. Let it stay up there and let everyone see: this is what a sociopathic review looks like - and then let them see how most dudes correctly identified it as such. That's how free speech works - both ways. Just like James Madison told us. If you have the right to post a rapey review, I have the right, and frankly the obligation, to say you're a fucking psychopath and that's a rapey review. Should I be censored when I say that? And if an idiot defends the psychopath by shouting "simp" or "you can't get laid for free" like a 12-year old, I in turn have the right to say you sound like a 12-year old, grow the fuck up.
Agreed! When this review first came out, I was like 15th in line in saying it was a bit much. I was probably the most "respectful" of these critics. Dude even liked my post and said something like "I respect it". I gave him waaaaaay too much benefit of the doubt even though it was right there in a furiously flashing neon that something was terribly terribly wrong. Put it this way, you basically just said: the airplane crash could be impacting your view that there was a design flaw in the engine. When I terribly misjudge something, I ask myself: how did I get it so wrong? Why didn't I see the clues that other people saw? Lots and lots of people. Or if I saw the clues, the flawed design, why did I minimize them? Maybe I shouldn't have dismissed those concerns by saying "you engineers are too emotionally invested in these airplanes". How can I get it right the next time?
What do you do in that situation?
Whoa, this one is fraught. You're wrong and you're right.
Let's start with where you're right.
I now think it probably didn't happen as he described. Let's set aside whether Sara could have/would have clamped down if she had wanted. My hunch is if this really happened as described and she had felt intolerably violated she probably would have pushed him away or shouted for help. Though even that is hard to say, she's made her choice about how to survive and navigate this life. That doesn't mean it's truly consensual. Well there's a whole murky area of quasi-consent and exploitation....again, that's another thread. This case is not murky.
But now I think he gets off on the idea that she wasn't consenting, and fantasized as such. He probably made up that little nugget. Just like he fabricates quotes from Victoria. Someone showed me other posts where it's crystal clear he gets all jazzed up by comparable little violations of consent. (I don't know if "little" is the right word, they are still significant). Part of the thrill. Now, is fantasizing and making up a story about sexual assault and presenting it as real any less fucked up or any less psychotic than actual sexual assault? I mean, in a legal sense, yes, of course. But again, my main point here is not to convict this particular sociopath for what really happened in the room - we can all stipulate it was probably just an extended boring bj - but to talk about his language. The language glorifies his imagined assault. The language is soaked in dehumanization. And the language could encourage the next sociopath. That's what guys reacted to.
Now let's go over where you're wrong and Beatnik is right.
You have a phallic-centric perspective, and consider your own worst-case scenario. From her perspective, what happens after that? Dude may not be completely incapacitated. Well, I don't know, thankfully it's never happened to me. And actually that point is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is what the girl BELIEVES will happen. In that situation, the guy is going to use all his might to get her to let go. That means a brutal beating. Who is going to risk that? Plus, who wants a disembodied bloody dick in your mouth? Luckily, you have us manginas here to enlighten you on the other half's perspective.
Excellent! You are halfway on the road to enlighenment. Since we now have Neitzche in the thread, I'll also invite Master Kong, aka Confucius to this party.
Zhizhi wei zhizhi
Butzhi wei buzhi
Shi zhe ye.
What you know is what you know,
What you don't know is what you don't know
This is true knowledge
Oh! So close!
Now that you've made it clear that you, as a man, can't truly know what's in a woman's mind, I can't help but wonder - why should we believe anything you say on what a woman truly wants? How do we know they love to be dominated? I'll ask you to take a step back......are YOU sure you have her implicit consent? How do you know? You're a man, after all. Yes, yes, I'm sure you'll regale me with tales about women creaming and screaming as you dig them out and hotel staff propositioning you etc etc. And those are good clues! Assuming you're an accurate reporter. But not every woman is wired the same. Like I said above, power and sex are linked in strange ways, and it's all a jumbled mess. Some women get off on the domination. Some don't. Again, ESPECIALLY with the young Japanese girls who are not conditioned to push dudes away or scream for help. Many of whom can barely muster the strength to say "excuse me....a little bit". How do you know they're OK with everything you're doing? You're a man, how can you know?
I ask myself that question all the time. I don't have a perfect answer. But we all should be asking ourselves that question all the time.
And for the love of god, we should not be joining in any celebrations (or finding "nothing wrong") of non-consensual acts, be they imagined or real. Or praising writing about girls as if they are, at best, rag dolls who serves their purpose, or at worst equating girls to a toilets.
The way I read it:
I’m a free speech absolutist.
Yet younger members of my family feel differently; do I have the fortitude to see the issue from their perspective? To honestly consider that if I had to compromise it wouldn’t be the end of the world?
I truly have no idea.
But isn’t the existence of so many convictions what’s tearing the country apart right now?
I’m a free speech absolutist.
Yet younger members of my family feel differently; do I have the fortitude to see the issue from their perspective? To honestly consider that if I had to compromise it wouldn’t be the end of the world?
I truly have no idea.
But isn’t the existence of so many convictions what’s tearing the country apart right now?
WTF?
I argued with you in good faith, asshole. And argued and argued and argued.
At a certain point it doesn’t matter. We’re not going to convince each other and it’s tedious as hell for anyone else interested in the original thread. Yet even after this was pointed out by a third party you have to keep going, as if that somehow “wins” you the argument.
You’re a paragon of maturity.
I argued with you in good faith, asshole. And argued and argued and argued.
At a certain point it doesn’t matter. We’re not going to convince each other and it’s tedious as hell for anyone else interested in the original thread. Yet even after this was pointed out by a third party you have to keep going, as if that somehow “wins” you the argument.
You’re a paragon of maturity.
In good faith? How? You accused me of basing my arguments on nothing, but you never expressed anything but unsupported opinions. At least I made the effort to cite examples to disprove your arguments.
Nope, not going to convince each other. But at least I don't argue illogically. The whole argument started because you misread what I meant by security. And then refuse to admit that the security is valid. Even though you admit those exact criminal enterprises still exist today, and didn't die off 40 years ago. You argued about the spas not willing to file charges, but ignored the my argument that they could file charges. And then you completely ignore the fact that charges can only exist if someone files a complaint. So it's OK for the spas to not file them, but totally fine because the security wouldn't because it would be a risk. Finally, you posted after @Anonajohn's post, but takes a dig at my post? Hypocrite.
Nope, not going to convince each other. But at least I don't argue illogically. The whole argument started because you misread what I meant by security. And then refuse to admit that the security is valid. Even though you admit those exact criminal enterprises still exist today, and didn't die off 40 years ago. You argued about the spas not willing to file charges, but ignored the my argument that they could file charges. And then you completely ignore the fact that charges can only exist if someone files a complaint. So it's OK for the spas to not file them, but totally fine because the security wouldn't because it would be a risk. Finally, you posted after @Anonajohn's post, but takes a dig at my post? Hypocrite.