Scarrom deconstructs Monte Blu on Raniere rape

Scarrom wrote a detailed deconstruct of Monte Blu’s “When Vanguard Rapes”.

It seems worthy of a separate post:

By Scarrom

Let’s concede “When Vanguard Rapes” isn’t a troll post.

“It’s not that women don’t want to be raped, but, rather, women don’t want to be raped by someone unattractive.”

You people think this guy is a genius? By definition, rape is sex that is non-consensual. Other words for the latter are forced, unwanted, compelled, coerced, etc. As I said previously consent is given via the mind. It is an act of free will or volition. If sex occurs where a woman wants it in any manner, e.g., by someone attractive, then it cannot be rape because want implies consent. Keith is logically incoherent.

“But what is repulsive can become attractive during rape.”

No, it can’t. Yes, a good can come out of an evil, POST FACTO. A “can” is not regularly causal, for example, like rubbing a match against sandpaper will light it 99.9% of the time unless it is either impeded or defective. And because the act occurs prior to the consequences, it also cannot absolve the act of its evil. Keith appears to be a Machiavellian, an end justifies the means type of guy. He is analogously equivalent to those who justified/justify the mass slaughter and maiming of hundreds of thousands of non-fighting women, children, old people, etc., i.e., innocents, that occurred when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The rationalization often given is that it saved years of war and the lives of thousands of American soldiers. It is the rationalization of sociopaths and people who have no respect for the dignity of human life.

“Put another way, suppose a blind woman was raped and got her eyesight restored? Would you still oppose rape in that case?”

If ifs, ands, and buts, were candies and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. A fantastical scenario that has no basis in Reality and therefore irrelevant and already countered above.

“He is not condoning rape but saying rape can be a remedy better than what it cures.”

Oh but he is. He is engaging in sophistry. To condone is to allow, excuse, ignore, or overlook. To rationalize the evil of rape away via a possible good that it can produce – and I am only conceding this notion by playing devil’s advocate – implies allowing it.

“If I err not, it was Keith who coined the term, ‘rapegasm’ to express the subtle joy a woman experiences when what began as coercion, ended with joyous acceptance, compliance and retroactive consent via orgasm.”

How does Keith, a man – and I use the term loosely – know the experience of a woman during sex? Wasn’t this the entire point of setting up Jness in the first place? Because only women knew what it was like to be women? Well, besides the covert reason for Jness as a stalking ground to find for Keith nubile, attractive women to have sex with.

Nonetheless, what began as coercion cannot auto-magically turn into acceptance after the fact due to the unconscious and involuntary act of orgasm produced by the autonomic nervous system. This is more sophistry that is logically incoherent. The act of rape will always be considered coercive. It cannot become consensual even if the woman decides not to press charges and overlooks it. Otherwise, there would be no point to the concept encapsulated by the word condone.

“If rape warms her, isn’t it logical to ask, how much pain did she get from rape versus how much pleasure she gets the rest of her life from orgasms?”

And how often does this occur in Reality? One percent of the time? One tenth of one percent of the time? Never? It’s far more likely the latter and the woman experiences trauma as a result, and once the physical pain subsides, years of emotional pain along with intimacy issues that take years to overcome and heal which may never even entirely happen. So not only is Keith trying to rationalize an evil act via a good it might produce, he is trying to do it using a fantastical and highly improbable scenario that never occurs in Reality.

“Keith suggested that a frigid woman can be a tigress through one rape by a superior man. She becomes empowered through the rape of a superior man.”

A man who rapes a woman (or man) is not superior to anyone. He’s a beast. A man who has subjugated his higher level rational capabilities to his base animal passions.

“Of course men who rape women have to be wise and attractive.”

They are not wise because of what I just stated previously. That someone is considered physically attractive also doesn’t grant consent. It might make it easier to give it, but it still must be given via intent.

“Keith is both.”

LMAAAAAAAOOOOOOOO.

“A rape by Vanguard is not rape like in the Bible. Vanguard possesses divine seed; it is capable of birthing an avatar child. Mary, mother of Jesus, was gladdened to be lifted up to the highest – when God raped her. Keith is not some fanfaron who rapes women for pleasure.”

Rape never occurred in the Bible. Christian theology adheres to the God of classical theism. The philosophy of the latter entails that God is the Being whose Essence is Existence, and is therefore, an immaterial being, and hence He does not have the physical parts to rape. Therefore, there is also no such thing as the “divine seed”. To cause something to be, God simply has to will it into being by His intent or by His word.

” Keith is unselfish.”

LMAAAAAAAOOOOOOOO. Keith is totally selfish. It’s a part of a sociopath’s condition. He’s an objectivist who admires Ayn Rand who taught the idea of a “virtue of selfishness”, a concept antithetical to ancient religious philosophies. He lived off of the inheritance of Pam Cafritz for decades and is still living off of the Bronfman sisters’ mega millions and the money of rich Mexicans. Keith may be so narcissistic to believe that he is unselfish because he has deceived himself into believing that he gives of himself and therefore everything is owed to him as tribute, but that’s about it.

“Zeus raped Antiope, Europa, Hera and Leda. All benefited from it immensely. As did Rindr when raped by Odin.”

Of course, only an idiot taught by Keith could use the ancient mythology of anthropomorphic gods to rationalize the alleged benefits that stem from the rape of women.

“What starts as rape becomes betrothal with penetration and marriage by orgasm. This is what the Muslims attempt to convey when they sanction temporary marriages. This is what is meant by conjugal rights.”

The majority of Muslims to my knowledge do not believe in temporary marriage. The Muslims are split into Sunni and Shia, and it is primarily the latter who engage in the latter. Marriage has always been a legally binding contract. It is typically one for life, even though divorce is allowed. Temporary marriage however allows for much shorter terms, even as little as an hour. That is why most Muslims don’t accept it as legitimate because it effectively becomes prostitution. Conjugal rights have to do within the context of all forms of marriage, and is not limited to just temporary ones.

I’ve already wasted enough of my time responding to this utter garbage, and the rest is more of the same inflation of the so-called greatness of the “unselfish” and “humble” Keith by way of upside down being right side up.

Frank Parlato