new

No, Amy Schumer did not give a speech celebrating how she raped a guy

Thought Catalog – which seems to be rapidly becoming the go-to site for terrible antifeminist posts – is making a bit of a stir on Reddit with a post bearing the deliberately provocative title “Wait A Second, Did Amy Schumer Rape a Guy?” Spoiler Alert: The anonymous author concludes that yes, she did. The anonymous author is full of shit.

In the Thought Catalog piece, Anonymous takes a look at a speech that Schumer – a comedian with some subversive feminist leanings — recently gave at the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women. The centerpiece of Schumer’s speech, a bittersweet celebration of confidence regained, was a long and cringeworthy story about a regrettable sexual encounter she had in her Freshman year of college, when her self-esteem was at an all-time low.

The short version of the story: A guy named Matt, whom Schumer had a giant crush on, called her at 8 AM for a booty call, after he apparently had been turned down by every other woman in his little black book. Amy, thinking she was being invited for an all-day-date, only discovered his real intent when she got to his dorm room and he romantically drunkenly pushed her onto the bed and started fingering her.

After several failed attempts at intercourse, and what she describes as an “ambitious” attempt to go down on her, he finally gave up and fell asleep on top of her. Lying there listening to Sam Cooke, she decided she didn’t want to be “this girl” any more, “waited until the last perfect note floated out, and escaped from under him and out the door.”

Looking back on the incident, she thanks her failed lover for introducing her “to my new self, a girl who got her value from within her.”

But Thought Catalog’s anonymous author, noting the extreme drunkenness of Schumer’s stumbling lover, concludes that “Amy’s actions may have constituted as rape in the eyes of her college, Towson University.” (Or at least according to the school’s current policies.)

Anonymous quotes Towson’s current policy on sexual harassment, which states:

"In order to give effective Consent, one must not be mentally or physical incapacitated (e.g., by alcohol or drugs, unconsciousness, mental disability)."

And adds:

"It’s hard to argue that Matt was not mentally incapacitated. In Amy’s words, he was “wasted.” "

Actually, the fact that Matt wasn’t too intoxicated to initiate an assortment of sexual acts with her — or to get up and change the music at her request — suggests that he wasn’t “mentally incapacitated,” at least by the standards used by colleges when investigating alleged sexual assaults. The Association of Title IX Administrators’ Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct Model Policy (which sets an unofficial standard for college administrators) defines incapacitation as “a state where someone cannot make rational, reasonable decisions because they lack the capacity to give knowing consent (e.g., to understand the ‘who, what, when, where, why or how’ of their sexual interaction).”

In any case, it’s not clear why Anonymous is looking at Towson’s sexual harassment policy, which is designed to deal with “non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, or requests for sexual favors that affect educational or employment decisions,” and which clearly doesn’t apply to Schumer’s story.

As for sexual assault, the school’s official web site states:

"Sexual assault is defined by Towson University as forcible sexual intercourse, sexual penetration–however slight–of another person’s genital or anal opening with any object, sodomy, or any unwanted touching of an unwilling person’s intimate parts or forcing an unwilling person to touch another’s intimate parts. Under this definition, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim’s mental or physical helplessness, of which the accuser was or should have been aware. This includes, but is not limited to, victim helplessness resulting from intoxication or from the taking of a so-called “date-rape drug.”"

This definition is drawn from the University of Maryland System Policy on Sexual Assault, which classifies sexual assault involving penetration — the traditional definition of rape — as a more serious type of sexual assault (Sexual Assault I) than those forms of sexual assault involving touching (Sexual Assault II). By this standard, assuming we equate Sexual Assault I with rape, Schumer clearly did not rape him.

Anonymous then looks at Maryland’s state laws and concludes:

"In the eyes of Maryland state law, things get a bit more complicated. Amy could be guilty of rape or sexual assault depending on whether or not penetration was achieved. According to the state law, a person may not engage in vaginal intercourse with another “if the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual, and the person performing the act knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a mentally defective individual, a mentally incapacitated individual, or a physically helpless individual.” Legally, it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t rape, at least given the details in Amy’s speech."

Well, actually, yes it is. And not just legally, but by any reasonable definition of the word “rape.”

Because Schumer, at least by her account, wasn’t “the person performing the act.” He was. She was lying there wondering what had gone wrong with her life.

If you read the speech in its entirety, instead of depending on the selective quotations in the Thought Catalog post, this is abundantly clear. As she describes it, he:

Pushes her down on the bed; as she writes, he does “that sexy maneuver where the guy pushes you on the bed, you know, like, ‘I’m taking the wheel on this one. Now I’m going to blow your mind. —’”

Penetrates her with his fingers; as she writes, “[h]is fingers poked inside me like they had lost their keys in there.”

Tries to have intercourse, though his penis is only half-willing; she describes him as “pushing aggressively into my thigh, and during this failed penetration, I looked around the room to try and distract myself or God willing, disassociate.” Even using the “made to penetrate” standard, she’s not raping him, because she’s not making him do anything; he’s the active one.

Goes down on her.

Attempts intercourse again; this time, “[o]n his fourth thrust, he gave up and fell asleep on my breast.”

At no point in Schumer’s story does she describe herself as initiating anything. Indeed, she spends much of the time thinking to herself how much she wants to leave.

"He started to go down on me. That’s ambitious, I think. Is it still considered getting head if the guy falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal? — Is it? Yes? It is. I want to scream for myself, “Get out of here, Amy. You are beautiful, you are smart, and worth more than this. This is not where you stay.”"

If a woman initiates sex with a man who is too drunk to consent, that’s rape. But a woman lying motionless trying to dissociate while a man tries to penetrate her is not a rapist. Even if he is drunk.

And that’s the case no matter how you switch the genders up.

Of course that’s not how they see things on Reddit, where most of those who’ve commented on the story have been quick to agree with the Thought Catalog author that Schumer raped her partner. Ironically, it’s been those outside the Men’s Rights subreddit who have been the most outspoken on this point. In TwoXChromosomes, a subreddit ostensibly devoted to women but in fact overrun with MRAs and other antifeminists, someone calling herself Shield_Maiden831 has gotten more than 200 net upvotes for a comment concluding that “f you really believe in equality, then it seems to be a clear cut case from her own admission.”

Not everyone agrees. Elsewhere in TwoX , one commenter by the name of critropolitan argues, I think quite cogently, that

"Unless the full transcript reveals something that the quotes in the article don’t, it doesn’t seem like Schumer exploited this guys mental state to do something to him that violated his will.

He was the one who called her.

He was the one who acted every step of the way and she went along with it.

Assuming that a person who is drunk is, automatically, in virtue of being drunk, without agency, is a mistake. It is moreover a mistake only made with regard to sex – no one thinks the same with regard to bar fights or the choice to drive. Drunken sex might not be the platonic ideal of sex, but it is not automatically rape in every case regardless of the actual state of minds, wishes, and feelings of the participants. —

There is no suggestion that Amy engaged in any sexual contact with this guy while he was passed out, or that she did something he didn’t want to do but he simply lacked the capacity to effectively resist or communicate non consent. Instead he was drunk enough to show significant signs of drunkeness, but not so drunk that he couldn’t not only communicate effectively but take a sexual initiative.

Rapists can exploit the vulnerability of drunk people, but we must walk back from the bizarre and agency-denying position that all drunk sex is rape. Rape is far too serious a matter for this bullshit."

It is.

But of course the MRAs and antifeminists on Reddit now accusing Schumer of rape aren’t interested in taking rape seriously. Indeed, if we look back on how they regularly talk about rape and issues of consent, it’s clearly they’re interested in taking rape less seriously. Their main interest in this case is as a supposed “gotcha” of a prominent female comedian with feminist leanings. In the process they are slandering her, and trivializing the real issue of rape.

[Historypill] Why the Western white men have become such cucks

It's a bit long text but I can't put it any shorter.

The men that I have in mind: White heterosexual middle class and working class men from Western Europe and Northern America. Why have they become such cucks?

These men have had a very specific cultural and social history. They have been conditioned through centuries to obey their elite and to respect the hierarchy. First during the medieval and post-medieval feudal system. Then in the 19th century, these feudal states transformed into secular nations. The non-aristocratic men of all classes were technically given liberty but at the same time, they now had to follow a new religion of being loyal to the nation and its institutions, its symbols, its cultural and industrial elite. This was furthered by secularism which removed the power religion to a large extent and separated it from the state, so the state became THE religion.

These regular white men had to work hard in factory, support their families, go to wars for their nations and were expected to be blindly loyal to the Institutions of the State and its Law. A modern ideal of manliness was born out of this that among other things included the idea that you should accept all the hardships ("men don't cry", men aren't supposed to show emotions etc.) and that you should always blame yourself for your failures, because you live in this wonderful nation that provides you with everything. This is the mentality from which the incels are judged today (basically as a man, you should never complain, and if you have a problem, it's your own fault).

During the 19th century, these Western European nation-states became the dominant superpowers and controlled almost the entire world. The white Western men suddenly became an aristocracy of their own in the global perspective, fueled by the ideas of the white racial superiority, and they started to see themselves as such. The white race as a whole adopted the aristocratic mentality that they are the noble men who have to spread civilization all over the planet (the idea of the white man's burden). The white men now became the gentlemen, the white knights, the nobility of the world.

Meanwhile, the Western society started "liberating" all kinds of "vulnerable" groups from the supposed "oppression". After the WW2, this process was intensified and was systematically directed by the institutions of the Western states. The Western white men were expected not only to continue to respect their regime and its institutions and its new ideology, but also to stoically accept all the insults and provocations from all the feminists, gays, degenerate "artists" and other groups dedicated to shame the white men and their past. The white men were expected to bear all this and they did because they still saw themselves as some sort of gentlemen and aristocracy that is "above this". It's basically like the concept of noblesse oblige where the nobility is expected to be held to a different code of conduct than the rest of society and to be generous and benevolent, not lowering itself to the conduct of the plebeian lower classes. This is basically what you have in the society today, one code of conduct for the white men (you have to be liberal, respectful, humble, work hard, don't complain) and another for everyone else (you can complain, be loud, insult). White men were raised with this code of chivalry for a long time and have integrated these ideas about protecting the weak. They repressed their manly impulses which would mandate them to lash out and respond aggressively.

This is why the middle class and working class white men allowed all of this post-WWII feminism, LGBT, sexual liberation and other degeneracy to flourish. They believed that they still held a position of power and that they have a responsibility to serve the Western civilization (which became synonymous with liberalism, capitalism, feminism and 'freedom'). So they not only accepted all the degeneracy and all the insults, but even became proud of it and bragged to the entire world about what kind of freedom they have. They were doing it from a position of power, feeling as if it's their duty to protect the weak. This why you have all these manly men in Western armies bragging about fighting against the Muslims or other non-Westerners for "muh Western freedom" while their Western women are whoring themselves out at home. They're actually proud of this degeneracy. They see it as a sign of power and progress. Ever wondered why the American army doesn't have any equivalent to Muslim nasheeds? Because for the Western men, listening to some degenerate rap is their nasheed as it symbolizes the alleged power of Western liberation and global supremacy.

The thing is, all these vulnerable groups that the regular white men are supposed to protect and bow down to in fact aren't weak at all. They have been systematically protected by the increasingly more powerful State and its Institutions (that the white men are blindly loyal to) for decades. The West gives this groups like women, LGBT, immigrants etc. special privileges like the old feudal kings used to do in the past, so that in turn, they can expect their support and loyalty. This is basically what we have in the West right now, these "weak" "vulnerable" groups serve the system, they endorse it, they want stronger state, stronger institutions, stronger police repression (at the excuse of protect this vulnerable groups) etc. And the system gladly accepts their demands.

It's very interesting to note that the feminists never really opposed the white-knightism and chivalry of the patriarchical Western culture. They're perfectly fine with the middle class and working class white men thinking that they hold this alleged position of power where they have to help women. They don't want to convince them into true equality because if there was true equality, they wouldn't need these white knights, and the white knights would no longer help them. The feminists are just promoting a specific type of ideology that tries to strengthen the system and its ideological norms and which tries to humiliate the white men while at the same time giving them a false impression to these men that they're actually being noble and strong.

The white Western men are still too blind to see all of this. They still believe in the old conduct of chivalry, either in the form of being a left wing cuck, or a right wing cuck. They both very similar in mentality when it comes to protecting "muh freedom" (which in reality just means giving more power to the state which gives you this "freedom" and protects it). Both left and right wing cucks are blindly loyal to the West and see it as the peak of all human civilization and progress.

The attitude towards racism is very similar in the West too in terms of white-knightism. As a white male you're supposed to formally criticize every form of white racism, but this comes from a specific position of power as well. As a white male, you're also expected to be much more liberal than a non-white male. Non-whites can get away with certain anti-liberal ideas but the whites can't (eg. Muslims can be much more radical than the white Christians who get persecuted for the slightest offense). This is because as a white man, you're supposed to be a gentleman and protect the "weaker" races. This is literally what this so-called liberal "anti-racism" is all about. It's not about equality of the races, it's about white men being expected to be cucks and white knights for other races. So it's essentially racist in itself, although it doesn't really benefit the majority of the white race (and arguably it doesn't help the non-white races either).

Note, I'm talking about middle class and lower class white men here. There are whites who do perfectly fine in the West now, the rich oligarchic elite which holds the power, the politicians, judges etc. They hold a similar position to the aristocracy and clergy in the feudal systems, they're the ones who are actually above all of those things and laugh at the pathetic white peasants who work like idiots for this system while being humiliated and insulted by all the privileged "weak and vulnerable" groups at the same time.

What keeps the regular white men going? Four things: 1) century-long blind loyalty to the state, the church (the churches have unfortunately become too westernized and weakened to stand up to the anti-Christian secular states), the institutions, the legal system, the hierarchy etc. 2) an utopian belief that they can ascend to being the elite themselves. No matter how bad the situation is for them, they still have some weird hope that they can get a normal family, earn big money etc. This comes from the American capitalist mentality of pursuit of happiness, American dream (this mentality is now prevalent all over the West). 3) Relative economic prosperity which still enables all kinds of copes. The illusion of the mighty West that will continue to dominate the world through science and technology and solve everything. Addiction to the materialistic world and hedonism. 4) Fear of going against the Western idea of manliness where as a man, you're not supposed to cry and complain. This is further fueled by the secular humanism which promotes the idea that you are the master of your own destiny and if you have a personal problem, you have to find a solution yourself and solve it.

Incels are a problem for the regime because they have opted out of all this and don't share this mentality (other than maybe what I described under the number 3). This is also where this obsession with painting incels as "frustrated white men" (when there are in fact plenty of non-white incels) comes from. The regime fears that the white men will abandon it and stopped being the obeying little peasants. They want the white men to continue thinking that they're the gentlemen and noble white knights of this system because once the local Western white men stop being productive, it's pretty much the end for the West as we know it. That's why they want to shame the white men who turn incel.

The end of the West will come either way. This society has nothing more to offer (culturally, philosophically), it has clearly degenerated way beyond the point of no return. While not necessarily blackpilled, people are more and more cynical, they don't want to serve their nations as much as they used to (harder and harder to find people who want to serve in the army), this whole nihilism that the West promoted in regards to religion and traditionalism is now backfiring and is starting to question their own liberal ideology as well. Incels are simply a sign of things that are about to come as the men abandon the Western ideals of manliness.