Yet another mamma-threw-away-the-child-and-raised-the-afterbirth chucklef*** demonstrates why the “Men’s Rights Activists” are all a bunch of criminally insane loserboys. One Roosh Vörek wants to make rape legal. Don’t believe it? Here are his very own “thoughts”:
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.
The exception for public rape is aimed at those seedy and deranged men who randomly select their rape victims on alleys and jogging trails, but not as a mechanism to prevent those rapes, since the verdict is still out if punishment stops a committed criminal mind, but to have a way to keep them off the streets. For all other rapes, however, especially if done in a dwelling or on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal.
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.
Here, Gentle Reader, is the paragon of masculinity from whom those “ideas” spurted:
Yeah, looks like a misogynistic a**hole, doesn’t he? No wonder he wants rape to be legal.
A counterproposal, then, for the “blogger” Roosh V: you want legal rape? How about we say women can legally cut off your wedding tackle whenever they want. Yours and that of any other rapist, sex criminal, MRA, or other mouthbreathing toilet stains who think they have a right to rape women.
Oh, you don’t like that idea, Mr. Vörek? Funny how that works.
Mr. Blunt and Cranky
bluntandcranky 
[…] bluntandcranky Reflections of a Radical Centrist « Men’s Rights A**hole wants to legalize Rape. Seriously. […]
[…] it’s not unusual: all across the country, the pro-rape part of our population gleefully rape away, and are rarely punished for their heinous […]
I’m pretty sure Roosh V isnt actually an MRA, he is just a PUA, they are two different things.
Forgive me for not caring about the difference between different types of rape freaks.
The title specifically says “Men’s Rights A**hole”. While you may not care, the people who wrote it do, and so do a lot of people talking about him.
Anyone who advocates rapist rights can pound a lot of sand in an uncomfortable place. MRAs, PUAs and their ilk are all a load misogynistic, whiny little weenies. Frankly, I do not give a monkey’s if any of them are offended.
Well I might be wrong about the people who wrote this caring if you are the actually the writer, but a lot of people do care about who rapists are associated with and will often label the associates guilty by association.
I find the faint possibility of some tangential emotional distress by an MRA to be less motivating than the sufferings of the women they target.
I was simply correcting what you said, its not about people getting offended, its about having the facts straight, but since you seem to want to use the suffering of the victims as a red herring instead of addressing these facts, I see no point in continuing this discussion. And I’m not an MRA if you were trying to imply that.
Oh, so citing rape victims’ suffering is a “red herring”? Christ on a trailer hitch. Maybe if people cared more for the victims than the victimizers (who include rape freaks like MRAs and PUAs), the column wouldn’t have been necessary. Sadly, it clearly was. Sad that many among us care more about the undamaged yet thin skins of whiny little weenie men than they do about traumatized women.
I know I said I wasn’t going to continue this, but I have ONE more thing to say. A red herring is when a different topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue, that is exactly what you are doing. I was trying to correct an error but you are focused on diverting attention away from it rather than addressing it by talking bringing up rape victims, all you are doing is using their suffering as a distraction. When it comes to people not caring about rape victims, you sound like a good candidate. Since you either are incapable of grasping this or simply don’t care, arguing seems to be futile.
The original argument was about rape, and talked about both sides (the rapist and the victim), so to continue doing so is hardly a distraction.