Roosh V. Wants To Legalize Rape

Roosh V. Wants To Legalize Rape

The Roosh V. article that pushes for legalizing rape on private property
1432
views

So maybe it didn't have to be feministic, realistic, something that could happen in the near future, or even progressive, but I figured that an article entitled “How to Stop Rape” would at least have a solid plan. Instead, as I read through the article and felt my face slowly getting hotter as each word threw blame, unrealistic expectations and misogyny at rape victims, I was met by a sort of backwards thinking people usually joke about.

“How to Stop Rape” is an article by a blogger who goes by the name Roosh V. He starts by saying that from a young age, men are told not to grow up and become rapists, which he finds to be unfair. Then, the transfer of a lifetime happens as he begins to blame women who have been raped of putting themselves in situations where it was obviously going to happen — saying they should have known better than to be there, and that really, they should have expected it. Then, as the article continues, he proposed the plan:

“I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.”

He chooses private property because typically, according to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, four out of every five victims are assaulted by somebody they know. Completely ignoring the actions of the men involved, Roosh V. talks about how he “saw women wholly unconcerned with their own safety and the character of men they developed intimate relationships with.” He is suggesting that women should be more careful about who they develop relationships with and always be on the lookout. And what a great life that sounds like, right? Always living under the fear that every man on the street, every man you meet at a party, every man you work with, every man your family introduces you to, every man in your family, could be someone who could potentially rape you. Women aren’t unconcerned when forming these attachments, they’re just being human — displaying the natural need to form bonds and friendships. How can you blame them for that when someone decides they want more than they are allowed to get, and forcibly takes it?

The article gets worse.

He tries to make his madness seem logical, saying that, “if rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.” There are so many things wrong with this that I have to take it sentence by sentence.

1. A girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse? I’ve seen women on trains sitting and holding their purses against them, and still someone will wait until the train stops, wrench it out of their hands, and make a dash for the closing doors. And, why is it the woman’s job to constantly be on high alert? Why can there be no push for rape to stop, so that she can live without fear?

2. The second sentence is insinuating that it’s a girls fault for getting drunk and allowing some man to drag her off to his bedroom. Roosh V. literally uses the word dragging. What willing participant every has to be dragged somewhere?!

3. Really? Chaperoned? So I guess we’re traveling back in time to when women weren’t allowed outside unless they were chaperoned. The point of a chaperone takes away all autonomy and saying women need one is so demeaning. As if to say that a 40 year-old woman still needs her daddy to walk her to the grocery store.

4. He started by saying rape would be legal on private property, and ends with saying that this new law will end all rape. How? That makes no sense. When marijuana dispensaries started, did people stop smoking weed? No! They got licensing so they could do it legally. Imagine how much easier it would be for rapists to wait around outside their houses and drag someone inside, where it would be legal for them to force them into their beds? And even worse, considering most rapes happen between two people who know each other, it would be legal for a woman to be raped by her co-worker, classmate, friend or family member as long as it was done within the house.

Some in the comments section say that Roosh V. is being satirical, but someone who has never labeled himself as a satirical writer nor told those who have backlashed against this article that he was joking is being satirical. Also, someone who has other articles where he bashes women and says things like this:

“While every feminist likes to repeat the phrase ‘No means no,’ it depends on context. Here’s a guide:

‘No’ when you try to take off her jeans or shirt means… ‘You need to turn me on a lot more.’

‘No’ when you try to take off her bra means… ‘Try again in five minutes.’

‘No’ when you try to take off her panties means… ‘Don’t give up now!’”

That is not satire.

That is not funny.

And that is the world rape victims, both men and women, live in. Afraid of people like this who blame the victim and try to further restrict them or kick them while they’re down.

This isn’t the change we need.

Cover Image Credit: Ms. Magazine

Popular Right Now

I'm The Girl Without A 'Friend Group'

And here's why I'm OK with it

538917
views

Little things remind me all the time.

For example, I'll be sitting in the lounge with the people on my floor, just talking about how everyone's days went. Someone will turn to someone else and ask something along the lines of, "When are we going to so-and-so's place tonight?" Sometimes it'll even be, "Are you ready to go to so-and-so's place now? Okay, we'll see you later, Taylor!"

It's little things like that, little things that remind me I don't have a "friend group." And it's been like that forever. I don't have the same people to keep me company 24 hours of the day, the same people to do absolutely everything with, and the same people to cling to like glue. I don't have a whole cast of characters to entertain me and care for me and support me. Sometimes, especially when it feels obvious to me, not having a "friend group" makes me feel like a waste of space. If I don't have more friends than I can count, what's the point in trying to make friends at all?

I can tell you that there is a point. As a matter of fact, just because I don't have a close-knit clique doesn't mean I don't have any friends. The friends I have come from all different walks of life, some are from my town back home and some are from across the country. I've known some of my friends for years, and others I've only known for a few months. It doesn't really matter where they come from, though. What matters is that the friends I have all entertain me, care for me, and support me. Just because I'm not in that "friend group" with all of them together doesn't mean that we can't be friends to each other.

Still, I hate avoiding sticking myself in a box, and I'm not afraid to seek out friendships. I've noticed that a lot of the people I see who consider themselves to be in a "friend group" don't really venture outside the pack very often. I've never had a pack to venture outside of, so I don't mind reaching out to new people whenever.

I'm not going to lie, when I hear people talking about all the fun they're going to have with their "friend group" over the weekend, part of me wishes I could be included in something like that. I do sometimes want to have the personality type that allows me to mesh perfectly into a clique. I couldn't tell you what it is about me, but there is some part of me that just happens to function better one-on-one with people.

I hated it all my life up until very recently, and that's because I've finally learned that not having a "friend group" is never going to be the same as not having friends.

SEE ALSO: To The Girls Who Float Between Friend Groups

Cover Image Credit: wordpress.com

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Abortion Bans Are Only A Small Part Of The Republican War On Women

These bans expose the Republican Party for what it truly is.

359
views

This week, several states passed laws that ban abortion after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, before most women even know that they're pregnant. The most egregious of these is Alabama — the state has banned abortion except for in cases of danger to the mother. Exceptions in the cases of rape and incest were actively voted against by the state legislature. Under the new law, any doctor who is caught giving an abortion would be sentenced to 99 years in prison, and the woman would be charged with murder.

Apart from the fact that this explicitly violates the decision of Roe v. Wade (which is the point), this is only a small part of the slow but steady degradation of women's rights by Republicans in the United States. To anyone who believes that this is simply about people being "pro-life" or "saving the children," then tell them to look at what happens after the fetus is carried to term.

Republicans oppose forcing fathers to be involved in the lives of their children that were forcibly carried to term, desires to cut food stamps and make it more difficult to feed said child, cut funding for affordable housing to make it more difficult for them to find homes, cut spending to public education so these children can't move up the social ladder, and refuse to offer the woman or her child health insurance to keep them both healthy. What about efforts to prevent pregnancy? Republicans also oppose funding birth control and contraception, as well as opposing comprehensive sexual education. To them, the only feasible solution is to simply keep your legs shut. They oppose all of these things because it is, in their eyes, a violation of individual rights to force people to do something. The bill also makes women who get abortions felons, and felons can't vote. I'll let you finish putting those two together.

If you view it from this framework, it would seem like Republicans are being extremely hypocritical by violating the personal freedoms of pregnant women, but if you look at it from the view of restricting social mobility for women, then it makes perfect sense. The Republican dogma of "individual rights" and "personal responsibility" is a socially acceptable facade that they use to cover up their true intentions of protecting the status quo and protect those in power. About any Republican policy, ask yourself: does this disperse power or consolidate it? Whether it be education, healthcare, the environment, or the economy, Republicans love to keep power away from the average citizen and give it to the small number of people that they deem "deserving" of it because of their race, gender, wealth, or power. This is the case with abortion as well; Power is being taken from women, and being given back to men in a reversal of the Feminist Movement of the 1970s.

Republicans don't believe in systemic issues. They believe that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed regardless of what point they started. This is why they love capitalism so much. It acts as some sort of great filter in which only those who deserve power can make it to the top. It's also why they hate social policies; they think that helping people who can't help themselves changes the hierarchy in a negative way by giving people who don't "deserve" power, power. Of course, we know that just because you have money and power doesn't mean you earned it fair and square, and even if Republicans believe it, it wouldn't change anything because it wouldn't change how they want to distribute power.

In short, Republican policies, including abortion, leave the average American with less money, less protection, less education, worse health, less opportunity, fewer rights, and less freedom. This is NOT a side effect. This is the point. Regardless of what Republicans will tell you about "inalienable rights" and how everyone is equal, in reality, they believe that some people and groups are more deserving of rights than others, and the group that deserves rights the most are the ones "that will do the best with them." To Republicans, this group consists of the wealthy, the powerful, and the white — the mega-rich, the CEOs of large companies, gun owners and Christians.

So, who do Republicans think deserve power and give it to? People who look and think like them. This, however, begs the question: Who do they want to take it from?

Related Content

Facebook Comments