I suppose I should mention the latest attempt at viral outrage from the always terrible Return of Kings boys: A post by B.R. Crumb with the deliberately offensive title “Why You Should Avoid Dating Girls Who Claim They Were Raped.”
The trolly Crumb is so unashamed of his trolliness that he actually devotes a chunk of his post to imagining an outraged reaction from me (“already I can see David Futrelle’s fourth chin trembling as he stammers his rebuttal in a fit of pique”).
So I might as well give him what he wants, a reaction, though it’s one of weariness rather than “pique.”
Crumb’s “argument” is that, while men shouldn’t necessarily “forego banging a raped chick (after getting her written consent, notarized and in triplicate)” they shouldn’t enter into relationships with them, because a dating strike against “chicks” who claim to have been raped will, as he puts it, undercut the appeal of rape. No, really.
Girls are fond of falsely crying rape because in the sexually liberated West, being known as a rape victim is all upside, no downside. Raped chicks are praised for heroism and bravery. Other people lavish attention on them, and ask them to speak about themselves at length, which for chicks is like crack cocaine.
In extreme cases, raped chicks have leveraged their purported suffering into international acclaim and seven-figure book deals. …
If men once again refuse to date raped chicks, rape will become once more an infrequent source of private and passing pain, and not an indelible merit badge to be trumpeted across all the media outlets in the land.
As you can see, his infallible plan to reduce the alleged appeal of rape is not actually a plan to reduce rape itself; it’s just a plan to try to get women to shut up about being raped.
In case this argument isn’t offensive enough for you, Crumb throws in a remark about raped women “orgasm[ing] underneath [their] alluring, bad-boy attacker[s].”
Crumb confesses that he doesn’t actually care much if men date “raped chicks”; they just need to announce publicly that they won’t.
What matters is that you say you won’t date raped chicks, and thus encourage girls to think that crying rape will hurt their romantic prospects.
Realize that we are fighting a war of disinformation, against an unprincipled enemy that is openly contemptuous of the truth. Nothing could be more tediously unproductive than arguing over facts with an opponent who has chosen to forego them. To win this fight, you have to hit the bitches where it hurts.
And for most chicks, that means attacking their romantic prospects—or, more fundamentally, their attractiveness. Even 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.
Though the headline of Crumb’s piece refers to “Girls Who Claim They Were Raped” (emphasis mine), and he uses similar language in his post, he quickly forgets about including this qualifier, referring repeatedly to “raped chicks” — as if, on some level, he recognizes that the overwhelming majority of rape claims are indeed true.
Towards the end of the post, he seems to suddenly remember that he’s supposed to pretend that rape accusations are all a bunch of lies.
[I]f we band together in this effort, then someday, in the not-so-distant future, a 6.5 will find herself in her dorm room, regretfully recalling the night she got pounded out by the captain of her college’s club soccer team… and she’ll idly contemplate crying rape.
But then she’ll remember how much she likes the captain of the club swim team, and she’ll consider the impact crying rape would have on his opinion of her. And she’ll think better of her little lie.
And when she does, it will be because together, we took a stand against ever dating raped chicks.
He couldn’t even keep up the facade for more than two paragraphs; in the final paragraph of that quote, he has returned to talking about women that even he would acknowledge have really been raped.
And that, of course, is the whole point of his screed. His “plan,” of course, is really no more than a fantasy — a fantasy, not of a world free of rape but one free of all talk of rape.
He’s not really interested in shutting up women who lie about rape; he’s interested in shutting up those who tell the truth.
But there is a silver lining here: If the terrible men who make up the bulk of the Return of Kings demographic actually do refuse to date rape survivors, well, they won’t be dating rape survivors. Return of Kings has already declared dating strikes against fat women, women with short hair and probably a number of other kinds of women that I can’t remember at the moment. Ultimately, one can only hope, they’ll end up boycotting all possible categories of human women and settle into long-term and hopefully more-or-less sanitary relationships with their Fleshlights.
I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.
(I’m sure the comments to Crumb’s post are even worse than anything he’s written; I just don’t have the energy to wander into them today.)
CORRECTION: Crumb says he did not write the headline to his piece; I have reworded one sentence to reflect this.