Many readers are outraged at our politically-incorrect post about Sonam Mittal and her so-called ordeals of being fed cake and getting passed out at parties, allegedly allowing a colleague to “rape” her. We don’t believe her story of rape or molestation, because she offers no details. She did not go to the police after the so-called rape, but instead wrote a blog post about it.
As Roosh says in his video, all public allegations of rape are false.
We can understand that in India, a rural or a socially-backward woman might feel intimidated by the corrupt Indian police and may just choose to live with her rape. But Sonam Mittal is the ultra-urbane woman, working for an NGO. She had no hesitation in going to the cops for a so-called molestation but did not even lodge a complaint to her employer about the much more serious incident of her supposed rape.
Why? There are only two possible reasons:
- She understands that her allegation will be laughed at, because of her own behavior (she was drunk and passed out).
- The allegation is false and a ploy to get attention and sympathy.
Let us focus on the first possible reason.
Many otherwise right-thinking people say that it is not justified to rape a woman just because she is passed out.
We agree wholeheartedly. Rape is a crime, and the unconsciousness of the victim does not make it a non-rape.
But, does the behavior of the victim bear scrutiny? If a man is sleeping on the pavement with a bag of cash open and gets robbed, every man will say that he brought it upon himself. That he should have been more careful. But when a woman faces unwelcome advances when she is too drunk to resist, people refuse to put any blame on her.
Why? Is the woman an infant that she cannot be expected to behave, remain in her senses, and protect her sexuality?
If a woman puts herself in a situation where an otherwise law-abiding man is tempted to take advantage of her, we believe she is also to blame. We do not agree with the politically-correct notion that “victim-blaming” is always wrong, and that a “rape” victim’s history is irrelevant. No, if a “victim” was reckless and had a history of casual sex, then her own valuation of her sexuality is low. She cannot then expect society to punish a man for robbing her sexually.
Society considers rape a serious offence, and rightly so. And that is because it puts a high value on a woman’s honor and sexuality. But if a woman herself is opening her legs every other night to strange men, then by her own behavior she is telling the world that she is “easy”. In other words, a slut. In that case, her sexuality is cheap and must not be considered at the same level as the honor of a loyal, monogamous woman, or that of a virgin.
As an analogy, let’s say a car-owner, every other day, allows strangers to take his expensive Jaguar for a joyride. If one of such men takes off with the car one day, does the car-owner deserve some blame? Absolutely.
We know that the laws in many lands forbids investigation into the history of a supposed rape-victim. And we disagree with those feminist laws.
In Sonam Mittal’s alleged rape at a party, she was passed out drunk and, in her own words, had a reputation of being a slut. A lascivious man might have wanted to take advantage of her in that situation, thinking that if even she didn’t like him, she wouldn’t object too much since she was anyway profligate with her pussy. What is one more cock in the long annals of her well-known promiscuity?
How did she end up at a private, isolated place while passed out, with a man next to her who could possibly take advantage of the situation? We wonder.
Even if the rape that Sonam Mittal alleges happened, the casualness of her sexuality was proved because she did not go to the police and did not complain against him, but instead wrote a sentence about it in a blog post.
Coming back to the first reason, we believe that being an otherwise intelligent woman, Sonam Mittal probably understands her own culpability at some level, hence she did not go to the police. She knew she would be laughed out of the police station, and rightly so. Just like a man would feel hesitant to go to the police after his open bag of cash by his side is stolen while he is sleeping on the road. The society is not morally bound to protect a man’s wealth and a woman’s honor when the man and the woman themselves do not exercise reasonable caution and are instead reckless.
And as for “patriarchy” that Indian women and manginas like to rail against, we believe patriarchy is infinitely better than matriarchy which nuclear urban Indian families are embracing by the hordes (primarily because of the legal landscape, and the fact that the modern Indian wife is too bitchy and the modern Indian husband too much of a sissy). A man must lead his house with strength and honor. A woman who fails to submit to her husband is a shrew who should never have gotten married.
A man is the natural leader of a household. This can be subverted only to result in grave consequences for the stability of the home, of the marriage, and for the psychological well-being of the kids.
A woman needs a strong man to protect her and to honor her. Kids need a strong father to tell them what is right and wrong. It is no wonder kids brought up by single moms in the US are much more likely to end up as criminals. Women are not attracted to a docile, submissive or even an equalist man. They may want to marry such a beta because he would be good, comfortable provider, but love, devotion and attraction depend on a man being masculine, and a woman being feminine. A woman has no respect for a man who cannot tame her tantrums but instead tries to “understand” her. A man must understand a woman’s nature, and not “understand” or give in to her shit tests and her hypergamy.
A woman who asks her man to endure her “leadership” and bitchiness will soon run into the arms of a badboy lover who gives her a pimp slap when she tries to wear the pants in his man-cave.