War Against Men: Campus Rape Tribunals Are Out of Control

Under the recently-adopted “preponderance of the evidence” standards for campus rape tribunals, many young men are being ramrodded through campus kangeroo courts with seemingly little sense of fairness or pursuit of the truth and are being expelled from college.

 

Note:  This is the 2nd part of three that I am presenting on rape statistics and the issue of rape on campus. The 1st is here:  http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/ and the 2nd is here: http://www.justfourguys.com/the-campus-rape-myth/

I will firmly state that any rape is a terrible thing and the perpetrator should be fully punished.  However, false accusations and exaggerating stats to club men over the head are also terrible.

Now, focusing on the topic of campus rape tribunals going overboard, this excellent article by Cathy Young, Guilty Until Proven Innocent, shares one such example, with my comments in square brackets interlaced:

One evening in February 2012, Vassar College students Xialou “Peter” Yu and Mary Claire Walker, both members of the school’s rowing team, had a few drinks at a team gathering and left together as the party wound down. After a make-out session at a campus nightspot, they went to Yu’s dorm room, where, by his account, they had sex that was not only consensual but mainly initiated by Walker, who reassured her inexperienced partner that she knew what to do. At some point, Yu’s roommate walked in on them [damn roommates!]; after he was gone, Yu says, Walker decided she wanted to stop, telling him it was too soon after her breakup with her previous boyfriend [or she was embarrassed to get caught?]. She got dressed and left.

The next day, according to documents in an unusual complaint that Yu filed against Vassar last June, Yu’s resident adviser told him some students had seen him and the young woman on their way to the dorm. They had been so concerned by Walker’s apparently inebriated state that they called campus security. [Were they alarmed that he might have been inebriated too since he had a few drinks?] Alarmed, Yu contacted Walker on Facebook to make sure everything was all right. She replied that she had had a “wonderful time” and that he had done “nothing wrong”-indeed, that she was sorry for having “led [him] on” when she wasn’t ready for a relationship. A month later Walker messaged Yu herself, again apologizing for the incident and expressing hope that it would not affect their friendship. There were more exchanges during the next months, with Walker at one point inviting Yu to dinner at her place. (In a response to Yu’s complaint in October, attorneys for Vassar acknowledged most of these facts but asserted that Walker had been too intoxicated to consent to sex and had been “in denial,” scared, and in shock when she wrote the messages.)

Last February, one year after the encounter, the other shoe dropped: Yu was informed that Walker had filed charges of “nonconsensual sexual contact” against him through the college disciplinary system. Two and a half weeks later, a hearing was held before a panel of three faculty members. Yu was not allowed an attorney; his request to call his roommate and Walker’s roommate as witnesses was denied after the campus “gender equity compliance investigator” said that the roommates had emailed him but had “nothing useful” to offer. While the records from the hearing are sealed, Yu claims his attempts to cross-examine his accuser were repeatedly stymied. Many of his questions (including ones about Walker’s friendly messages, which she had earlier told the investigator she sent out of “fear”) were barred as “irrelevant”; he says that when he was allowed to question Walker, she would start crying and give evasive or nonresponsive answers. Yu was found guilty and summarily expelled from Vassar.

Yu, a U.S.-educated Chinese citizen, is now going after the Poughkeepsie, New York, school in federal court, claiming not only wrongful expulsion and irreparable personal damage but sex discrimination. His complaint argues that he was the victim of a campus judicial system that in practice presumes males accused of sexual misconduct are guilty.

In April 2011, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to college and university presidents laying out guidelines for handling reports of sexual assault and harassment. One key recommendation was that such complaints should be evaluated based on a “preponderance of the evidence”-the lowest standard of proof used in civil claims. (In lay terms, it means that the total weight of the believable evidence tips at least slightly in the claimant’s favor.) Traditionally, the standard for finding a student guilty of misconduct of any kind has been “clear and convincing evidence”-less stringent than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but still a very strong probability of guilt.

Another article reports on how a convincing defense by the accused should be taken as an indication of guilt, so basically, if you can’t persuade them of your innocence you’re screwed but if you can then they should take that as a sign of being an abuser–kind of sounds like the old witch trials where you were screwed either way: float and you’re a witch; sink and you’re innocent but you often drowned;

At the time the student was charged, Stanford was using the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — the highest standard of proof, used by courts in criminal cases. But after OCR’s letter, Stanford shifted to the “preponderance” standard in the middle of his case.

Plus, the campus panel that heard the case had been “trained” using documents boldly proclaiming that “everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence” and that one indication of an abuser is that he will “act persuasive and logical.”

James Taranto reports about how another young man, Joshua Strange, was accused of “misdemeanor simple assault” and “felony forcible sodomy” but was cleared in court.  However, “Auburn expelled him after a campus tribunal found him ‘responsible’ for committing the catchall offense of ‘sexual assault and/or sexual harassment.’”

Taranto further describes the proceedings:

Mr. Strange still should not have been convicted [by the university]. The grand jury found there wasn’t even probable cause, a looser standard than preponderance of the evidence. But the university hearing that yielded his expulsion was a travesty of a legal process.

The most striking quality of the 99-minute proceeding is its abject lack of professionalism. Imagine a courtroom with a jury and witnesses, but no judge or lawyers. Mr. Strange and his accuser had lawyers present—the only people in the room with legal training—but they were forbidden to speak except to identify themselves at the outset.

Presiding was an Auburn librarian, Tim Dodge, the committee’s chairman. The other members were two students, a staffer from the College of Liberal Arts and a fisheries professor from the Agriculture College. Mr. Dodge was confused and hesitant throughout. At one point he got lost and admitted: “I can’t find the script here.”

The absence of a judge to control the proceedings left Mr. Dodge anxious for authoritative guidance. It was provided by the two Auburn administrators the accuser called as witnesses. [WTF are witnesses doing providing guidance for the procedure?  Why are people with no legal training acting as the judge, and why are they then acting as the jury?] First up [as a witness] was Susan McCallister, an associate director with the campus police who doubles as a “safe-harbor advocate,” a concierge for purported sex-crime victims. “Any kind of services that they need access to, we provide a doorway,” she explained. Such services include counseling, “academic accommodations” and help in filing police reports.

At the hearing, Ms. McCallister proclaimed the accuser “very credible” and attested to the belief that Mr. Strange was “a potential threat to [the accuser's] safety.” But Ms. McCallister disavowed knowledge even of the accuser’s version of events. “As a safe-harbor advocate, I really don’t need to know a lot of details, and so I didn’t ask her to go into great detail,” Ms. McCallister said. “I don’t really want survivors to have to tell their story over and over again.” [How can you judge if you don't know a lot of the details?]

Ms. McCallister had referred the accuser to Kelley Taylor, the university’s sex-discrimination enforcer and the accuser’s second witness. Ms. Taylor also described the accuser as “credible” and added that she found the allegation “very compelling.”

Mr. Dodge asked Ms. Taylor to describe “typical behaviors” of “somebody who may have undergone a sexual assault.” She listed three. First, “they frequently cry.” Second, “their storytelling is sometimes disjointed, sometimes not.” Third, “there’s often a lot of emotion inserted into the story that is about being very upset or in disbelief or unsure what to do next, petrified.”

Read the rest of the article to see how farcical this tribunal was.

Returning to Cathy Young’s article, the question is raised of why unqualified people are even in the business of doling out justice.  A crime as serious as rape or sexual assault shouldn’t be left to unskilled amateurs with no safe-guards of fairness for the accused:

The campus is a place where sex happens a lot-including sex in random, often drunken encounters rife with potential for misunderstanding and regret. The Online College Social Life Survey, collected from nearly 25,000 students on 20 campuses from 2005 to 2011, found that women and men alike drink heavily when hooking up with a casual partner: an average of five alcoholic drinks for women, six for men. When you try to criminalize much of this confused and confusing sex, subjecting it to second-guessing by secretive quasi-judicial panels operating under arbitrary rules and influenced by the deference to feminist orthodoxy that prevails on many campuses, the results will not be pretty.

Complaints from all sides about the way colleges handle sexual assault reports raise the question: Why should an offense as serious as rape be “prosecuted” by a college, rather than turned over to the police? The answer is that the vast majority of these charges would be unlikely to survive the most basic legal scrutiny.

There’s much more in these articles that will raise the ire of any fair-minded person so I encourage you to read them.

Also, recall this feminist who saw the light about the war on men when her son was falsely accused.  Luckily, even though he had to endure a kangaroo campus court, he was acquitted.

Rape is a terrible crime and should be punished.  However, it should be investigated by competent and fair-minded authorities, not zealous feminists or campus bureaucrats afraid of losing federal money.  Likewise, a false rape claim is a terrible crime and should be punished.  Hopefully both rape and sexual assault will continue to drop.

The good news is that according to the US Dept. of Justice, the rate of completed rape or sexual assault has dropped by nearly 70% from 1995 to 2010.  Also, there was a 58% drop in total sexual violence committed against women (threatened, attempted or completed) during that time period.  More needs to be done to reduce this even further but more needs to be done to reduce false accusations as well.

106 thoughts on “War Against Men: Campus Rape Tribunals Are Out of Control

  1. 1

    […] Note:  This is the first part of three that I am presenting on rape statistics.  The 2nd is here:  http://www.justfourguys.com/the-campus-rape-myth/ and the 3rd is here:  http://www.justfourguys.com/war-against-men-campus-rape-tribunals-are-out-of-control/ […]

  2. 2

    […] Note:  This is the 2nd part of three that I am presenting on rape statistics and the issue of rape on campus. The 1st is here:  http://www.justfourguys.com/rape-why-1-in-4-is-wrong/ and the 3rd is here:  http://www.justfourguys.com/war-against-men-campus-rape-tribunals-are-out-of-control/ […]

  3. 3
    UK Fred says:

    There is so much here that requires comment, but I would like to restrict myself to one aspect of this. Should an accusation of rape be proved to have been made knowing it was false, the person who made it (homosexual rape also happens) and the advisers they have had in presenting their case should be denied anonymity. The Old Testament had a stipulation that someone who made a false accusation of any crime should be subject to the same sentence that the offence would require under the law. For any feminists reading, this is not for cases where there is not sufficient evidence, but rather where there is clear evidence of an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Would any college in the western world have the cojones to go back to such a truly just system? I doubt it.

  4. 4
    Liz says:

    #3: I think in the case of campus rape tribunals the “same sentence” wouldn’t suffice.
    When faced with clear evidence that the accuser “gave false witness” she should face criminal charges, not mere expulsion.
    Crazy world. I’m afraid to send my oldest off to college in a few short years. But the military would be even worse at this point in time.

  5. 5
    Todd says:

    The biggest problem is that a) a very small percentage of men commit the vast majority of rapes (like only 2% of men commit 75% of rapes), b) these guys are damn good at picking potential victims (imagine the burglary rate if only committed by people good enough to steal the Mona Lisa from the Loeuvre) and c) these victims are often primed by abusive environments that make them most susceptible to rape than the general population. In other words, the typical rape victim has either suffered childhood physical or sexual abuse. Unless we get better at figuring out these super-predators among dudes, it’ll be hard to cut the rape rate. Imagine if the murder rate was largely controlled by serial killers, and you get the idea of the challenge.

  6. 6
    theshadowedknight says:

    As a man on his way out, do not send your children into the military. It is out of control. The witch hunting is in full force. I know men who were accused years after the sex in question, and now face criminal charges. Never join the military, and never have anything to do with any woman who ever was.

    The Shadowed Knight

  7. 7
    Jack says:

    So now we have innocent boys having their lives ruined by girls who quite blatantly falsely accuse them of rape. These boys can’t get an education, they won’t get jobs, all for doing nothing at all wrong. Evil, and promoted by radical feminists with their tentacles on the government.

    I don’t want to hear any more complaints though. An oppressed group (young males in America) will only make changes when the establishment fears them. For that, you need action. You need guys standing up for their rights by any means necessary. The federal court case is nice and all, but what we really might need is some colleges getting literally burned to the ground.

  8. 8
    jimmyhendricks87 says:

    Han, this is the best and most important piece you’ve ever written. Shameful and scary stuff.

  9. 9
    Spawny Get says:

    Made three and a half years ago by Paul Elam (avoiceformen)

    How to build a male bomb
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pH9tpL6lDw

    Do they not know how to stop pushing, or are they so fucked in the head that they want this war? I hope that suing these misandrists works, because I’m not sure what option ‘b’ is, but it’s not going to be pretty.

    There’s something deeply rotten in a woman that would use this stuff. Some kind of mental illness…must be something like that.

  10. 10
    Johnycomelately says:

    Top post.

    This is just a method being used by the left to bypass the courts. They are slowly circumventing sound lawful reasoning with quasi legal institutions like the family court that parrot ideological propaganda.

    Their problem is that they can’t simply overturn the legal culture and centuries of jurisprudence overnight. And even there they are slowly but surely progressing as they stack the high courts with lackeys and cede sovereignty to supra national treaties.

    And you know what, we ain’t seen nothing yet, they are progressing to the lowest common denominator.

    Human Rights
    Womens Rights
    ?

    The next phase will be Children’s Rights, we’re entering a world of pain when they upon up that little box.

  11. 11
    Spawny Get says:

    A bit of false rape activism by Men’s Rights – Edmonton (via avfm)
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/stop-edmontons-sexual-assault-specialist-karen-smith-from-her-possible-crime-spree/

    She says false accusations don’t matter, they intend to find out if they matter when they’re about her.

  12. 12
    Spawny Get says:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/some-editorial-thoughts-on-occidental/

    Anonymous reporting of alleged rapes, what could possibly go wrong?

  13. 13
    Spawny Get says:

    There are more stories, but last one from me tonight
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/falsely-accused-student-sues-delawere-state-university/

    Goodnight

  14. 14
    herbie31 says:

    It’s chillingly interesting that with sexual assaults declining in the time period shown in the article that women are being coached to reconsider the events of the day in question, so as to make something out of nothing. The methods used by these miscreants would have made Stalin proud.

  15. 15
    Han Solo says:

    @Spawny 13

    Good link and yet another example of a false rape charge being dismissed. It’s outrageous that he was suspended until the hearing was over and he was innocent. Hopefully, he wins his lawsuit. From that link:

    A Delaware State University student is suing that school for defamation of character and violation of his civil rights delawareonline.com. reported yesterday.

    Andre L. Henry was brought up on criminal charges after a woman with whom he had consensual sex on October 24 falsely accused him of raping her. The charges were dropped on November 1 according to his lawsuit but around that time the University notified him that he was barred from campus pending an investigation and hearing provided by the school. He was not allowed on campus grounds or adjacent areas for 45 days.

    “For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, … he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation” said Daniel C. Herr, Henry’s attorney. “You can’t do that for 45 days and then finally say ‘Oh, we’ve come to our decision. He was found not guilty.’ ”

  16. 16
    Han Solo says:

    @Jimmy 8

    Thanks. I think we can all do a bit by spreading the word, writing gov’t officials, and making it clear to our own alma maters that we won’t donate money if they have these unfair policies.

  17. 17
    Shlomo says:

    This all happens because men refuse to do the obvious: form pro-male groups on-par with NOW and use them politically and media-wise. Instead, guys either become feminist manginas or think only “bad” men run into these situations.

    Worse, too many think the most effective stance is for men to remain decentralized, unorganized, and out-of-sight.

    It’s funny, in a cynical sort of way.

    Plus I’m sure the snared dudes laughed at the idea of a “men’s movement” until the hoochie-harridan hammer hit ‘em.

    Feminism has been kicking male asses for 50 years. Incredibly, men continue to watch sports on TV and drink beer rather than effectively fight back.

    Guys have formed unions, armies, and corporations. They build state-of-the-art hospitals to treat kids with burns…for free. The one thing they won’t do is publicly protect themselves or other men from pernicious, misandric poonani.

    It’s like half the world walks around with “Kick me!” signs on their backs, wondering why it hurts to sit down.

  18. 18

    Re: 10

    Indeed. Leftist ideology is generally opposed to the principle of legality, the rule of law and judicial independence. The Jacobine Reign of Terror in France and the Red Terror in the USSR and China are ample proof. They believe in “revolutionary justice” instead.

  19. 19
    Tam the Bam says:

    O God one of my peripheral nightmares, this.
    I’ve instructed my lads as best I could on how to avoid Sticking Their Dicks In The Crazy while at uni, and so far the worst that has happened is one boy got bitched out publicly by the girl who’d just dumped him for the second time (yes you read that right, I guess he’s just a bit thick), for subsequently going through her girly housemates like a dose. Verboten! You vill stay dumped!! OFC he laughed like a drain.

    But the False Rape thing does bother me, since the boys have a number of crazy bachelor uncles (congenital, no worries, nothing nobody can do lol) of whom I am fairly certain any one would respond to such a slur on the family name by … taking the accuser to the woods, and hiding them, and then themselves, real good and think “good job!” to their mad loner selves.
    They tend not to think things such as likely consequences (especially for me!) through all that hard.
    Mainly because they just don’t give a .. er .. care, even though they’re technically very “smart”.

  20. 20
    CaptDMO says:

    Doesn’t it ALWAYS start with the “special” courts, with “special interpretation” of “special” rules?

  21. 21
    Liz says:

    #17: “Guys have formed unions, armies, and corporations. They build state-of-the-art hospitals to treat kids with burns…for free. The one thing they won’t do is publicly protect themselves or other men from pernicious, misandric poonani.

    It’s like half the world walks around with “Kick me!” signs on their backs, wondering why it hurts to sit down.”

    I think the majority of the population simply has no idea how bad things really are. Politcs are local, so until one is touched by it either directly or indirectly (like the feminist lawyer in the article above), they either don’t believe it or think it’s an insignificant problem.

    TheShadowedKnight mentioned what things are like in the military right now. Take these campus tribunals, add [b]no sex at all[/b] and you’ve got the situation in the military. Careers and lives are ruined all the time over false claims with no evidence whatsoever…and women have a vested interest because they become untouchable, figuratively. One woman who claimed (proven absolutely false and completely fabricated) a sexual assault on a tdy about a year back still receives preferential treatment and never works, the point she’s a hazard. She has outright told her commander the only way she will agree to move is if she receives a promotion. God help her accused if he had actually ever touched her body rather than left her at the door, with video evidence he went right to his room.

    If it comes down to her word against his and proceeds to trial because there is no evidence either way (rather than evidence she obviously lied, as was the case above) political correctness soils the process at the courts martial boards. As, too, can chain of command…the officers serving on that board often differ in rank and it’s more in the Captain’s interest to defer to the Lt Colonel’s decision. There are a lot of incentives to err on the side of prosecution. Furthermore, this decision doesn’t have to be unanimous….so a hypothetical Captain falling on his sword in the interest of justice might only harm himself and have little of no impact on the verdict anyway. It has a kind of game theory dynamic.

    Now, juxtapose the above to what you hear coming from the mouths of Congressmen. They just virtually unanimously decided to strip commanders of the authority to overturn sexual assault convictions in the new defense bill. This was the only sanity left in the process and now they’ve taken it out. We hear crickets. Why? Because, again, politics are local.

  22. 22
    Liz says:

    #20: +100, CaptDMO

  23. 23
    deti says:

    Johny, 10; and Hollenhund, 18:

    The most important takeaway from the post is WHY campus tribunals are even used in cases involving intersexual disputes, mostly false rape and sexual harassment. The idea is “relaxed” due process notions; and the ability to define virtually anything as “unwanted” sexual interaction.

    “Due process” arises from the US Constitutional principle that no one be deprived of life or liberty “without due process of law”. That means fundamentally two things: (1) notice of proceedings against you; and (2) a fair hearing. Notice generally means adequate time to prepare, a right to know the charges against you, and a right to know what evidence for you and against you is out there.

    There are a number of concepts tied up in “fair hearing”, most of which include the right to a speedy trial, to present evidence in your favor, to compel witnesses to attend the hearing and testify; the right to cross examine witnesses against you, the right to have a fair and impartial factfinder decide guilt to a fairly high standard of proof, and the right to uniform and generally applicable processes for admission and evaluation of evidence.

    Campus tribunals are used because they don’t have to follow traditional criminal court concepts of due process. Many times the available evidence is nowhere near strong enough to secure a criminal conviction. There’s very little or no evidence that ANY crime was committed. In some such cases like the ones in the OP, the man was cleared of charges, charges were dropped, or acquitted at a trial. But, someone’s (usually a woman’s) feelings were hurt or something happened that she later regretted.

    The cries of “someone’s gotta do something about this” and “justice must be done” caused the rise of these kangaroo courts. “If we can’t send him to jail, we’ll kick him out of school. He’ll have to explain it to every subsequent university and every employer he has for the rest of his life. He’ll lose educational and employment opportunities. But it’s only fair, because if she regrets sex with him, he did SOMETHING to her that was wrong. Because we cannot have women regretting sex.”

    Campus tribunals are not law enforcement agencies or judicial entities trained in fact finding, cross examination, and dispute resolution. The emails and “scripts” approximate “discovery”, and the kangaroo courts provide the appearance of “due process”. The “due process” used is rudimentary at best, run by people who have no concept of fairness, the rule of law, or cutting through what people SAY happened and getting down to what REALLY happened.

    Of course, with regard to the OP, both colleges involved appear to be private institutions. Constitutional notions of due process and fundamental fairness don’t apply to them, or at least the government cannot make them use those concepts in the arena of student discipline.

    The second thing that happens is defining everything down, such that anything he does is wrong. More specifically, anything that she doesn’t like after the fact is wrong. In either case, the man is on the hook. “False rape” becomes “sexual assault” becomes “unwanted sexual contact.” The word “rape” had a very specific meaning at English common law. Forcible penetration was required. Now we have “sexual assault” which includes any kind of touching at all with any kind of sexual undertone. “Unwanted sexual contact” is as innocuous as touching. Kino could be “unwanted sexual contact”. Helping a woman into a car by lifting her elbow is “unwanted sexual contact”. Standing inside a woman’s “personal space” in an elevator because of over crowding can be “unwanted sexual contact”.

    Sexual harassment is no longer moored to any concepts of reasonableness. Quid pro quo sexual harassment became gradually expanded to “hostile environment” sexual harassment in the workplace. Hostile environment is being expanded further to church, any public location, the social scene, and the street – virtually any place where men and women interact in public.

    “Hostile environment” used to mean a pervasive, persistent, consistent, and threatening work environment perpetrated by one sex on another that is so bad and so oppressive as to prevent the “target” from working. Now, the term means any isolated instance of literally any speech or conduct by anyone, any time, anywhere, that one hypersensitive woman doesn’t like.

    Instead of using a “reasonable person” standard, universities and government agencies insist on use of the “reasonable woman” standard. In other words, if that kind of conduct would make a “reasonable woman” uncomfortable, or would be objectionable to a “reasonable woman”, then the conduct is sexual harassment and the man is pronounced guilty. There is no clearer deprivation of due process. The entire point of having uniform laws and rules is that they apply to everyone and they are easily understood; so you can review the law/rule, understand it, and conform your conduct so as to comply with it. Under the “reasonable woman” standard, men are now being demanded to put themselves in the shoes of women to determine whether a woman would like or not like this or that conduct or speech. No man could possibly operate in such a confusing, unclear and oppressive legal/rule regime.

    We now live in a society in which a man can be brought up on charges in school merely for standing too close to a woman. Men are having to go to college in environments where they can get kicked out of school merely for trying to hold a girl’s hand. Men are putting themselves in the position of possibly getting kicked out of school for an awkward, hamhanded, or botched approach.

  24. 24
    Badpainter says:

    The rule of law dies in any situation wherein the crime is accepted as defined by the victim rather than by an objective, defined, and predetermined standard. The victim in being permitted to define what is crime and what is not usurps any notion of presumption of innocence, and thereby due process.

  25. 25

    Speculative here, but I think that given the campus gender ratio skew the frequency of rapes as traditionally defined—i.e., physically coerced sex—has almost certainly declined over time. What we do have is an environment in which A) female pre- and post-intimacy psychological needs are considered something of a joke, and B) an environment which has sexual activity coming early on, usually with relatively low investment made by male students, in which sex is less of a marker of a committed relationship (i.e., a reward for male commitment) and more of a marker for mutual interest in a *potential* relationship. The woman bears more of the risks because the sex is happening in a contextual sheath of uncertainty rather than one in which a relationship has been secured (caveats apply—NAWALT, some women want the sex but not the relationships, etc., etc,).

    A and B are not going to change—the campus is simply a reflection of much larger trends, a point at which the rubber hits the road. The ramifications of A + B are that some number of young women will feel that they had sex early and without male courtship displays only because they thought that a relationship would come of it, and then they will be upset when the relationship never materializes. A small % of women will feel that the man owed them more than he gave them, and an even smaller % of these may feel that this means that they were “raped”. I suppose that a better term would be “regret sex” or “had by a cad” or “poor after-care sex” or “he lied to me” because calling these episodes “rape” may cause a tragic lack of differentiation between a gamble that didn’t work out as intended and a terrifying episode of physical violence in which a threatened and immobilized woman is forced to have sex.

    I personally think it runs much deeper than this. I’ve written briefly of the Ben Franklin Effect before: to recap, the BFE is a well-studied psychological phenomena in which investment in a given person or activity is SUBSEQUENTLY linked to positive emotions about that person or activity. Cause and effect are reversed—instead of someone liking you and then doing something nice for you, the BFE would have someone doing something nice for you first, and then liking you afterwards as part of an internal rationalization/auto-consistency model explaining why he or she did something nice for you.

    In an old-fashioned courtship environment, male pre-sex investment was expected and comparatively heavy—even when he did not have much information to go on to decide if he really liked the girl, the guy was still responsible for the majority of the dating expenses. Serial dating was the norm for most men (these days parallel dating has been normalized), so there was a considerable chance of the BFE taking hold and the man’s emotional appreciation escalating as his investment level did. That’s not to say that his affection was necessarily artificially generated; it just meant that there was a feedback loop in place to link courtship expenditure to emotional appreciation. It’s just a lot easier today for guys to walk away after sex; even if they say they want a relationship, they may not have much tangibly invested in one, and thus may be more prone to naturally prefer less emotional commitment (i.e., resource commitment and emotional commitment would display strong positive covariance. I also doubt that the relationship is linear).

    You could conceptualize declining male pre-sex investment as a light, early, and widespread form of MGTOW, in which men still engaged in the dating market nonetheless increasingly feel that it is every man or woman for himself/herself and that self-sufficiency—both economic and emotional—are the marks of a mature person. When I was an undergrad, a woman who wanted a relationship badly was considered “normal”, maybe a bit “needy” or “sensitive” at worst; today’s college kids would be more inclined to label the exact same behavior as “psycho” and “desperate.”

    Male pre-sex investment has declined, and with it so has whatever BFE component was serving as a kickstarter for relationships (from the male POV). Increasing current male pre-sex investment levels would be a highly complicated undertaking that could well involve rolling-back feminist strides in education and income—as many have written, young women are to some extent caught between the horns of a dilemma on this. No free lunch, etc.

  26. 26
    capt. says:

    The underlying problem here folks Is American law enforcement has been bought, shall we say. All the perversions to American law enforcement over the last 30 years have been “federally funded” mostly by the VAWA act that has gone ….”feral”.

  27. 27
    Badpainter says:

    Bastiat Blogger,

    What you describe sounds like the female version of being “friend zoned.”
    So that would imply “pump and dumb” is the equivalent of “friend zoned.”
    I which I case I now get to ask why can’t women just get it?

  28. 28

    Badpainter, I think that’s a good way to look at it. It’s like being “friendzoned” after sex has entered the relationship rather than before it. The male friendzone complaint is usually that he invested in the relationship or was used as an emotional tampon, and yet there was no sexual payoff for him. The female complaint might be that the man did NOT invest, was NOT emotionally intimate, and yet there IS a sexual payoff for him.

    I once thought that maybe these “rape tribunals” would be at least implicitly endorsed by most female college students as a kind of tax on cads—”so maybe it wasn’t rape as normally defined, but these guys were still wrong and deserved to pay…” But the female students are not idiots and will be outspoken against this stuff: they realize that the ramifications will be to make males more gunshy and risk-averse about relationships, and to force the majority of women to bear even more of the risks and costs in the mating market.

    It’s probably similar to how a lot of female employees feel when they have a woman who makes sexual harassment claims in the office; they know that she just made it a lot harder for all of them, and created a more fearful and adversarial climate in terms of gender relations. The men will now anticipate that snakes and scorpions are beneath every rock, and the horror stories will circulate and create frenzies of risk-aversion among men.

  29. 29
    Badpainter says:

    Do women recognize these consequences? And what are they doing about it?

    I know that in an all male environment any shithouse lawyer that abuses the company rules and policies to the detrinment of the productivity or his co-workers is quickly motivated to find different employment.

    I’ve not seen a similar behavior amongst the ladies.

  30. 30

    University administrators abuse their authority in many ways, and many American universities have clearly demonstrated a hostility toward free speech. The “Star Chamber” tribunals discussed here are only one part of the picture, albeit a part with especially devastating consequences to their victims.

    The organization known as FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) brings legal pressure against universities, and in some cases individual administrators, who abuse their power. They have a heavy case load…see for example:

    http://thefire.org/case/869.html

    ..and I’m sure all contributions are welcome.

  31. 31
  32. 32
    Han Solo says:

    @David Foster

    I agree that university administrators abuse their authority and that many universities are anti-free speech, usually in ways promoting leftist, socialist and totalitarian thought. Diversity of opinion is discouraged and fought against. A search for truth is often the last thing on their minds.

    I looked over at thefire.org and was led to this article by their president: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/the-10-worst-colleges-for_b_4475755.html

    I think that the swamp of college education needs to be drained. Hopefully the education bubble will soon pop and hopefully lawsuits will succeed against offensive colleges. Unless evidence exists that they aren’t lefto-fascist instruments, no money should be donated to universities.

  33. 33
    Obsidian says:

    @Han:
    Wow, excellent post, and is long overdue. Gents (and ladies!), THIS is what happens when the ladies rule – out goes all the things that Deti has so eloquently stated that makes ours the Great Republic that it is.

    I’ve seen it happen up close and personal. Back in the 1990s, I was accused by a Woman of being her baby’s daddy. Heeding the subpeona too show up at Philly’s Family Court building downtown, I headed down there to see what the deal was.

    Now, let me explain something to you in case you aren’t aware: Philly has one of thtee most stringent Family Court systems around; cops and sherriffs abound in the bulding, and if a Man is found to be in arrears in terms of child support payments, he can and most likely will, be locked up on the spot; it is not at all unusual to see shackled Men being carted off to the Roundhouse (Police Administration Building) lockup, and/or sent off to the county jail, nowadays known as CFCF.

    OK, so I show up, but the putative baby mama doesn’t. They say to me, “Well Mr. Obsidian, we can take your DNA swab right now and call Ms. Baby Mama back to test the little girl in question” – a “request” I flatly and vehemently denied. My reasoning was simple – how did I know that my biometric data couldn’t be used to simply implicate me in this matter, assigning the baby in question and simply saying that I was the daddy? Nope – my reply to the lady techs/staff was, that if it was good enough for “Maury” it was good enough for me – and they way he does it, the accused baby daddy, the baby mama AND the baby, are ALL in the same room, when both said accused baby daddy AND the baby are DNA swabbed, after which Maury then reads the results in front of everyone, with BOTH the baby mama AND accused baby daddy present.

    I then further informed them that per the US Constitution, I had the right to face my accuser in open court, whereupon her testimony could be cross-examined in the light of the charges and the evidence (6th Amendment).

    They had to agree, and sent me home, saying that they would reschedule another court and DNA swabbing date.

    Said date came, and once again I showed up for court, and once again, the baby mama accuser didn’t show; also, the lady techs/staff at the Philly Family Court tried to DNA swab me, which I again vehemently refused. This time I strongly implied that I might need to procure legal counsel, on the grounds that the case seemed ridiculous; this prompted them to tell me, that they would reschedule the case for one more date; if said baby mama accuser did not show up with the baby, the magistrate would have no choice but to throw the case out.

    And so, a third court date was set…I again showed up…and the baby mama accuser and baby girl in question, did not.

    The magistrate threw the case out.

    I have a buddy who is a social worker by trade and works closely with the CDC down in ATL; he has told me that Philly has a cuckoldry rate of something like THRITY PERCENT – and that it is not at all unusual for Women here to attempt to “pin” their baby on a guy they deem to be a good provider.

    My point?

    That, Women as a group, can and will either use the Law, or makeup “laws” of their own, to suit their own ends; in fact, I have a post in the hopper right now that speaks precisely to this fact, one that has been verified by history, so stayed tuned. Philly has become a full-on de facto Matriarchy, andd not just Black Philly – ALL of Philly – and the same is true of these college towns, like Auburn, etc. A Man would have to be utterly insane to cast his lot in with such a clearly bent place. And explains how and why Men have been leaving the college campus in droves (think about the near total absence of Black Men from these spaces – coincidence? Really?).

    Secondarily: Men, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AND VOCIFEROUSLY CITE AND INVOKE THEM WITHOUT ANY HINT OF FEAR OR REBUKE. Most Men simply do not know their rights in thesse matters. Study the US Constitution like you know the back of your hand. Study statues and precedents pertinent to these issues. Be able to rattle them off with the quickness. Don’t let the Women-led system punk you.

    Fight for your rights.

    O.

  34. 34

    My links were no good?

  35. 35
    Han Solo says:

    @gg

    Good links. However, putting more than one link in a comment tends to make it not automatically post and require approval. Your comment is now up.

  36. 36

    Edwin Bleiler was expelled from Holy Cross the day before graduation.

    This article quotes Brett Sokolow, who runs National Center of Higher Education Risk Management. That’s who campuses send their Title IX Coordinators to for feminist indoctrination.

    “Colleges are expelling people they shouldn’t”

    http://www.news-herald.com/general-news/20120421/for-colleges-rape-cases-a-legal-minefield

    Here is Pierce Harlan’s site.

    http://www.cotwa.info/2013/12/colleges-have-absolute-duty-to.html

  37. 37
    Twenn says:

    My son was a Cadet at one of the military Academies. There was a female Cadet he was attracted to that he had an almost career-ending encounter with. One night he awoke to find her climbing into his bed, uninvited. He began to participate in apparently willing sexual contact (but not penetrative)

    At some point, his roommate awoke and she decided she shouldn’t be there, said ‘stop’, he did and she left the room.

    He was obviously confused, wrote a few emails to her apologizing for any misunderstandings, etc. After the fact, the story morphed into: she had been drinking, the room he was in was her old room, she got up to go to the bathroom and sleepily went to the ‘wrong’ room in the confusion of sleep. 1-2 months later, this all became sexual assault charges against my son and he faced getting kicked out of the Academy.

    in the end, he was heavily punished but allowed to stay. To say he is a bit gun shy around American women is an understatement.

  38. 38

    Twenn-

    The military is the most dangerous place for a male and not because of combat.

    http://nypost.com/2013/05/31/military-sexual-assaults-bogus-epidemic/

  39. 39
    Rex Little says:

    If you want to know what feminists think about this issue, here’s a blog comment I ran across last summer:

    “yes, there are cases of false rape. They happen so rarely that they are insignificant in my book. If we ever live in a world where actual rape and false rape occur with the same frequency, MAYBE I will take that idiocy more seriously. At the moment, and likely the rest of my life, that ain’t gonna happen. Because all the ostracization and hate and criticism a man could get from a false rape report is insignificant compared to violating the bodily autonomy of women.”

    (Comment was from a man, by the way.)

  40. 40
    Liz says:

    #37: If he had been the drunken one who went to his old room by mistake and jumped into bed with a female, he would have been kicked out, Congress and the DOD would have launched an investigation, and it would have made headline news.

  41. 41
    Jason says:

    http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667–one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven

    Pulled this from the big link post above. A really great debunk of that fucking 1 in 4 bullshit.

    (They’re inflating it, I watched some Feminist piece of shit cite 1 in 3 in some video the other day. )

  42. 42
    Tam the Bam says:

    “outright told her commander”
    Beggin’ yer ‘onour’s pardon, an’all … but in WHAT KIND OF A FUCKIN’ ARMY does that ever happen? Is you havin’ ay .. giraffe ..?

    God. You people. Doomed, so ye are … and at great expense, more’s the pity.
    What’s wrong with trigging her up to a grating and giving her 40 of the cat, and a bucket of seawater, eh?
    I suspect the rot started since your lot started substituting damned coffee for rum, amirite?

  43. 43
    Spawny Get says:

    @Tam
    I just had a flashback to Cap’n Pugwash.

    Great times with Roger the cabinboy, Seaman Stains and Master Bates

    Har har me hearties, splice the mainbrace

    Great times indeed, until it was your turn in the barrel. Need more than a tot then, shiver me timbers

  44. 44
    Spawny Get says:

    Avast ye lubbers! ‘Tis Pugwash episode one
    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7ibjTaAjQU0

  45. 45
    Spawny Get says:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwzVjsu9XvM

    Kindle cut’n’paste snafu. Episode one ^^^^^^

  46. 46

    Read a couple of columns about the feminist whose son was hammered.
    The comments were interesting. She was not getting the love.

  47. 47

    My son’s and I are obsolete according to TIME and feminist bigot Hanna Rosin.

    http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/#comments

  48. 48
  49. 49

    Re: 33

    That’s no surprise. One general rule of history is that men build civilizations and women ruin them.

  50. 50

    Re: 28

    I normally agree with you but this seems widely inaccurate. I’ve never seen any evidence of any woman doing anything to reverse, oppose or even openly criticize such anti-male policies AS LONG AS she’s one of the women these policies are supposedly protecting. (In other words, Dr. Helen and other old women, out of college and workplace, don’t count, so don’t mention them.) Whiskey, one of the lesser-known ‘sphere bloggers, has correctly noted that all policies regulating male-female relations and pushed by women have one purpose: to separate alphas from all other men. Western women, generally feral and misandrist, demand an environment both at the workplace and college where only the alphaest of alphas approach them. Not coincidentally, this is exactly what these policies will result in.

  51. 51
    Spawny Get says:

    @GG #47

    I’d like to thank Hannah for her fine work, every article like this sends more men on their own way. Encourages more men to drive on by the woman broken down at the side of the road. Refuse to donate to female charities. To pass on the red-pill to other men. It makes no difference to me whether a woman denies the label of feminism when she’s in need of aid, she’s still taking all the goodies of feminism (AA, quotas, lowered standards etc) so she deserves the fruits of the downsides too. Hannah broadcasts the message to men, “Bros before hos”, and I thank her for it. At least she puts her bigotry out in the open. Of course, I still wouldn’t piss on her if she were on fire.

    I’m sure that that is what this bigot wants (the division), but really that’s not my problem. Women need to get vocal and shut this shit down because they’re the ones who will be left with the shittiest end of the societal stick when things get real.

    Stardusk has a great channel on Youtube, there are others (Bar Bar, GirlWritesWhat, JerryTheOther), the word is spreading. Here’s a good one that those on the sideline should bear in mind about fixing shit when feminism dies. About who needs to pay the bill for the clear up.

    Are you a repairman? No, you’re not.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahz7vWEPxeY

    Bar bar made a great quote once, “Feminism didn’t ruin women, it unmasked them”. Men will be well advised to remember that once the gender war is done, and this JFG article is proof that there is a war on.

  52. 52
    deti says:

    @ BastiatBlogger, 25:

    “ some number of young women will feel that they had sex early and without male courtship displays only because they thought that a relationship would come of it, and then they will be upset when the relationship never materializes. A small % of women will feel that the man owed them more than he gave them, and an even smaller % of these may feel that this means that they were “raped”.”

    BB, this is an excellent point. In a woman’s mind, giving up sex implies an exchange. She’s supposed to “get something” in exchange for her sexual favors. Many have posited the theory that many times, the woman cries “rape” falsely because she didn’t get something in return for the sex she willingly gave up. She feels shortchanged and slighted because he got what he wanted but she got nothing, or got “less” than he got; hence the punitive attitude she takes later.

    All of this is because if she gets “less” than he gets from the sexual exchange, it means she’s easy, she’s cheap, she’s a slut. It also means that there was an unfairness, an injustice that happened; and that injustice has to be corrected, made right, and set straight.

    In my opinion, she at the very least wants bragging rights for bedding a superior man. But she also wants either acknowledgment of her “gift”, or tangible investment.

    1. She has sex with a “fake alpha” or beta in alpha clothing. This is where she claims false rape, because she’s “better than that”. She’d never willingly have sex with an unattractive man.
    2. He wasn’t “nice” to her after the fact. He blew her off after sex with her. He didn’t call her, didn’t text her, didn’t even say “thanks for a great time”. Hence the instructions from RoK that alphas will have to give her some “nice guy”, “boyfriend treatment”, beta comfort afterwards to show her that he “respect[s] her in the morning”.
    3. She wants you to invest a little something: a little time, a bit of money. In her mind, sex means he should at least buy her breakfast in the morning, or take her out on a “proper” date at some point.

  53. 53

    Deti, excellent points.

    HH, I totally get where you are coming from. Perhaps I am a victim of Stockholm Syndrome or regulatory capture, but I suppose that I do have more sympathy for the majority of the young women on campus than many do. It must be acknowledged that the reasonable women are probably not doing enough to openly criticize and police the actions of the few who abuse the kangaroo court system.

    Personally, I think that a few radicalized fem activists who agitate for any perceived gender sleight have stumbled and bumbled their way into a kind of emergent insurgency campaign (somewhat reminiscent of Kilcullen’s “Accidental Guerrilla” concept). No one has issued an OPORDER—the phenomena hasn’t been designed and executed by a cabal of highly trained, feminist ex-military officers or anything (thank God), but the effect is still insidious: a few neurotics who don’t like guys use snark and provocation to elicit a response from larger groups of men, then hide among the relatively “neutral” populace of women (such as those on campus, the vast, vast majority of which do not wish to be called feminists and do not read any feminist or manosphere sites whatsoever. In fact, the average male reader at J4G knows much more about feminist politics than does the typical female undergrad). Then perhaps we overreact and clamp down indiscriminately, which provides deliciously misogynistic quotes and potential recruitment material for some of more anti-male fem groups. I am of course sensationalizing how it works, but still…

    Many of the pop-feminist agitators who try to unilaterally declare themselves ambassadors, “thought leaders”, or union bosses for other women have no qualifications to do so whatsoever beyond puerile op-ed pieces. They should be identified and isolated, IMHO. I personally quite like many of the sex-positive, Camille Paglia type feminists.

    Re: alpha filtering/the Tom Brady Effect. I have some convoluted thoughts on this—actually rooted in decision science—that I am struggling to articulate in a coherent way. I will present them for the J4G think-tank’s skeptical consideration as soon as I can formulate it properly. I look forward to seeing what you think.

    I can say that I agree that the current regime does probably lead to the risk-averse and insecure males being even more frightened to approach, leaving the SMP more entertaining for the males who are 1) bold enough to approach and 2) to those in-demand men who women themselves will approach and compete for. Years of social engineering attempts have created unintended incentives and sexual-payout feedback mechanisms which reward glib, socially intelligent cads who can finesse their way into the panties; clumsy-but-hot-so-it-doesn’t-matter alpha-jock types who are similarly successful; and, most dangerous to women of all, the rare socially intelligent alpha-jocks who hit all the right buttons simultaneously. All of these guys essentially have girlfriends when they want to, flings when they want to, and mixtures of both when they want to.

    PERIPHERAL TOPIC: Liz, I have a question for you—assuming you had a magic wand and could control these things, would you want your son to have a “player” phase in his young romantic life? Why or why not?

  54. 54
    Han Solo says:

    @HH 50

    Whiskey, one of the lesser-known ‘sphere bloggers, has correctly noted that all policies regulating male-female relations and pushed by women have one purpose: to separate alphas from all other men.

    I agree that much of what we see is to act as an alpha filter.

    As has been discussed before, this is why game seems so abhorrent to women, that an unattractive or neutral guy could suddenly become attractive to her is alarming.

  55. 55
    Liz says:

    Bastiat: “PERIPHERAL TOPIC: Liz, I have a question for you—assuming you had a magic wand and could control these things, would you want your son to have a “player” phase in his young romantic life? Why or why not?”

    I would like for my sons to have options, and I’d prefer they have a lot of options. I wouldn’t want them to be cads or disrespectful, but if they turned out to be very successful with women, and lots of women liked them, that would make me happy (although I’d also hope they turn that into a successful relationship eventually).

    On the flip side, I wouldn’t feel the same if I had daughters…I would want them to have a lot of options also, but exercise those options with a great deal more care and discrimination.

  56. 56
    Spawny Get says:

    “As has been discussed before, this is why game seems so abhorrent to women, that an unattractive or neutral guy could suddenly become attractive to her is alarming.”

    I just threw up in my mouth a bit just thinking how terrible this prospect was to women.

  57. 57
    Badger says:

    Rex Little,

    ” “Because all the ostracization and hate and criticism a man could get from a false rape report is insignificant compared to violating the bodily autonomy of women.” ”

    Notice how “man” is singular, but “women” is plural.

    This is not an accident – feminists have been very effective in exporting the female-collective mindset into public rhetoric with terminology like this. The idea is to cast any crime, alleged crime, or thought-crime if need be, that targets a woman into a misogynistic pathology rather than an isolated incident. Thus, a dude who slaps his wife is not violating her rights, or improperly escalating a dispute – he’s committing an act against “women” as a whole. The subtext implies that if he did it once, he’ll do it again and no one with a vagina is safe.

    In this way both the person (who is cast as being overcome with a psychological defect in relating to women write large) and society (for creating an environment a la “rape culture”) are indicted as fatally flawed and thus the activist can demand society brand the accused an “undesireable” and ask society to flagellate itself in guilt. It’s really “the personal is political” played out in reality.

    Thus terms like “violence against women.” “Domestic violence” is an umbrella term for disputes between lovers, but many activists have tried to bend discussion to VAW. “Violence against women” is rhetorically superior for two reasons: one is to label the collective pathology as I noted above, the other is to cast domestic violence as something that men do to women and eliminate any presumption that women can do it to men (itself a Marxist idea that the “victim class” can’t be criticized).

  58. 58
    Lowbrass says:

    “Error establishing connection to database”. Had trouble earlier and lost half of what I typed before.

    @53/Bastiat Blogger: “Re: alpha filtering/the Tom Brady Effect. I have some convoluted thoughts on this—actually rooted in decision science—that I am struggling to articulate in a coherent way. ”

    Articulate or not, I’m curious to see your reasoning. I’d like to compare my own experiences with being both sides of the filtering / effect.

    “Years of social engineering attempts have created unintended incentives and sexual-payout feedback mechanisms which reward…”

    Indeed, and I can offer a rough profile of the types of guys you’ve described, based on people I’ve known. Men who haven’t been very successful have attempted to take on these elements and mannerisms in the hopes that they could emulate the success.

    a) “glib, socially intelligent cads who can finesse their way into the panties;”

    Think of your typical teenage heart throb. The one the girls call “cute”. He’s got a nerd’s body draped with whatever clothing is relevant today. Maybe some tattoos. He learned early on that girls are receptive to his presence and thus has developed a large ego about it. Has lots of ex’s as friends. Friends, as in: already banged.

    When asked how he does it, he’ll tell you that you need to dress hip / sharp, groom, and that you need to be friends, first.

    What isn’t being said: He’s already pre-selected for being “cute”. He has smooth mannerisms and strong eye contact. The large ego begets the confidence, which only comes from lots of positive feedback. Has a strong frame of mind, so women follow him and his interests. He’s suave, thus brag-worthy to women.

    b) “clumsy-but-hot-so-it-doesn’t-matter alpha-jock types who are similarly successful;”

    Hulk make noise and smash! During the holiday, they proudly proclaim how they drink brewski and burp ham or turkey. Otherwise, they’re just generally impolite and indifferent. Doesn’t dress or groom well, and couldn’t care less. Girls act grossed out, but it’s not enough to counter their tingles, not with those abs, that chest, that back and shoulders. Girls make it their mission to fix and train him, and display an amazing tolerance for the bad habits and behavior.

    When asked, they suggest being bold, confident; just talk to them.

    What isn’t being said: He’s naturally bigger / taller, but usually both, already conferring something dominance and safety. Boldness and aloofness is misconstrued as confidence. Their talk is cheap, as they’ve been pre-selected for the aforementioned qualities. They don’t know what they’re doing or what they really want, so there’s natural spontaneity.

    c) “and, most dangerous to women of all, the rare socially intelligent alpha-jocks who hit all the right buttons simultaneously. ”

    The apex male. He could be smart, but doesn’t have to be. He’s big and strong; learned to brawl early on, so he stands up to and won’t hesitate to fight aggressors. He’s an outlaw biker but if outlaw bikers are in his way, he won’t hesitate to maneuver his truck through the wolfpack. Possesses gift of gab and charm such that he doesn’t care about consequences of his actions; he just talks his way out, like he did in “juvi”. Charismatic, can talk to everyone; shakes hands and kisses babies. Lifts people up and puts them down as needed. Dresses up or down to match any occasion. People know he has been up to no good, but damn, he’s just so charming that girls can put that aside… and the adventures… though he’s often the center of attention, he bores easily and is ready to act on whatever odd thought that crosses his mind. For women, the tingles are squealing with anticipation.

    When asked, they either don’t know what to tell you, or suggest that you just be yourself. Don’t worry, you’ll find somebody. He’s also too busy and occupied with women to really help you, anyway.

    What isn’t being said: everything.

    “All of these guys essentially have girlfriends when they want to, flings when they want to, and mixtures of both when they want to.”

    Yup; and this brings me back to some experiences with the Tom Brady effect. I have a friend who is that “apex” male. While we are not close like we were at the end of high school and early college, I had a hell of a time being in his shadow.

    In groups of mixed friends, only HE could spout off odd thoughts, off-color jokes, or belch and pass gas. Everyone; his gf, her girl friends, they all would think that was so funny and amusing. They’d playfully laugh and say, “you’re such an asshole, haha.”

    But if I chipped in? Suddenly I face the derision of wailing harpies. “You’re disgusting! You are such a pig, how can you say that?!” And, if I called her out – “WTF? I said / did what he just did, why isn’t it funny now?” then they’d tag team on me. It’d just be more name-calling, only louder. As if to reinforce, “how dare you defy the limiting beliefs we have projected upon you!!!”

    A few years back, a similar thing happened to me backstage with some friends and acquaintances in a band. Same deal. It was acceptable for the drummer to spout off some crude humor and sexual puns. Everyone was laughing. So, I was amused and had to share a few of my own. He and I laughed some more. But, guess who the bandmembers’ girlfriends turned on? Yours truly. I recall facing them: “What? I don’t get to be sick and funny?” One of them replied, “But you’re not like that, Lowbrass..” Before I could finish asking, “not like what?!” The drummer deftly interrupted and requested we talk about something else.

    I can see why many guys give up. It’s not fun having to fight armies with only a handgun.

  59. 59
    Han Solo says:

    Good thoughts Badger and Lowbrass.

    Lowbrass, sorry about the outage. It’s a good reminder to always save before posting. A simple ctrl-a, ctrl-c is all that’s needed.

  60. 60
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Amazing to see this posted in the Wall Street Journal of all places. Now I think the time is to use a lot of shock headlines like “see young college women lie about being raped.” Or “5 reasons young women lie about being raped.” Stuff like that really brings the hits.

    Han, good work.

  61. 61
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 53

    I really like Camille Paglia. She participated in that debate in Toronto with Maureen Dowd and Hanna Rosin and basically pointed out how much women depend on men and only in the lap of relative luxury and plenty are women even talking about not needing men, ungratefully not realizing the complicated and delicate throne of prosperity and privilege that they’re sitting upon.

  62. 62

    #60

    @jamestaranto
    @CHSommers
    @CathyYoung63
    @cl_kitchens
    @kcjohnson9
    Are worth following….

    Females lie. Males lie. In the days of VAWA, you are convicted if ever accused by a female.

  63. 63

    @41 Jason..

    Please follow the rest of links.. If you have time..

    Eye openers.. Which Hans has referenced 2.

  64. 64
    Johnycomelately says:

    @Bastiat 25, Badpainter 27

    Those comments deserve a post of their own.

  65. 65
    Han Solo says:

    On the topic of apex alphas setting the tone for what the rest of society does, look at this comment at Dalrock’s by pathfinder about how under Lenin no-fault divorce was allowed and women had few requirements placed upon them and society broke down. The authorities saw that society would collapse if it continued. Stalin came along and reversed course. I haven’t done any research to confirm this and undoubtedly there are many other factors but I wanted to share this since it was a striking confirmation of what I’ve been saying for quite some time, that apex alphas set the ultimate tone of what happens in society.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/more-ominous-than-a-strike/#comment-104063

    The book, Our Dance Has Turned to Death, was published in 1979 and was at that point noting the decline in marriage and the subsequent effect on society. He said that if the country doesn’t turn back to God and tradition, that the country could fall.

    Following is a comparison to life in Russia [my comments in brackets]:

    The communist government under Lenin gave women almost complete freedom from home requirements and allowed divorce by one partner’s registering with the authorities [no-fault divorce]. Soon there were more divorces in Moscow than marriages. The result was a rapid breakdown of marriage and morality, and within a few short years (in the 1920s and 1930s) gangs of several million youth – illegitimate and rejected children – roamed the streets and countrysides, stealing, pillaging, and killing [sound familiar?]. It soon became evident that social order was in jeopardy. Sorokin [from book: The American Sex Revolution] points out that the whole decay of society occurred under a single regime, and authorities quickly saw it was unworkable.
    When Stalin came to power he used his iron fist to restore the family to dignity. On May 8, 1935, he announced, “The existence of the family must be recognized and provided for.” He and the Communist Party made divorce almost impossible, and immorality was looked upon with disfavor. A.S. Makarenko and a dedicated staff were assigned to bring about a pattern of mutual trust and cooperation among the children. Family life was restored.

  66. 66

    Re: 65

    One source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/07/the-russian-effort-to-abolish-marriage/306295/

    Gorbachev apparently discussed the same phenomenon in his book “Glasnost”, although I’ve never read it.

    When the Bolsheviks enacted no-fault divorce in 1918, they seemed to have forgotten that it’s mighty difficult to collect child support from “deadbeat dads” when the entire country is engulfed in civil war, chaos, terror campaigns and societal breakdown. When more peaceful times returned in 1923, there were still 7 million or so street children in the USSR. Not all of them were war orphans. Many Russian women simply threw their offspring out as daddy wasn’t around to pay child support either because he was already dead or the authorities were unable to reach him and force him to pay. Not surprisingly, it was mainly women who demanded more strict laws afterwards, because it’s no fun for them if men start abandoning their obligatory patriarchal roles in a dirt-poor country without female economic independence. Hence divorce was pretty much made impossible in 1934, plus abortion was outlawed and child support was collected with more official vigor from then on. However, the general breakdown of trust between the sexes could no longer be undone.

  67. 67

    Re: 52

    It’s not just that. Have you noticed that many prostitutes are psychologically messed up? It’s proof that women generally aren’t psychologically equipped to handle casual sex with multiple men outside relationships even when they are paid for it in cash.

  68. 68

    Re: 51

    Forget about it. Women won’t do sh*t. For a woman it’s either Team Woman or Team Her Man. There’s never a Team Man, not even for men – for them it’s either Our or and Their Team.

    I have asked this question elsewhere, I’ll ask it here: have you ever seen a so-called Red Pill woman who is plain-looking, single, childless and over 22? There aren’t many around. It seems to be proof that women psychologically block out unpleasant truths about the SMP/MMP if they aren’t sufficiently secure about their own position in the SMP/MMP. They just cannot handle it.

  69. 69

    *for them it’s either Our Team or Their Team*

  70. 70

    Re: 53

    Understood. But still: have you noticed that the women who speak up against anti-men laws and policies, Dr. Helen and whatnot, are always women who have no skin in the game, so to speak? They are either married or old, so they have pretty much left the SMP. They are self-employed, old or their position is mostly secure in some way, so they aren’t benefiting from AA. They don’t have daughters benefiting from feminist policies. In other words, they are opposing feminism because they can afford it. But most women cannot afford it.

  71. 71
    Liz says:

    #70: How often do you see anyone, anywhere actively campaigning against their own vested interests?

    I have skin in the game because I’ve seen women ruin the military, and I have sons. Without those life experiences I wouldn’t take an interest, because I wouldn’t know what’s going on. And I’d have other issues to think about that took priority over issues that didn’t concern me.

  72. 72

    #71

    That’s a given. But it’s exactly for this reason that it’s foolish to expect college women or corporate women to oppose anti-men policies and laws in any way.

  73. 73

    I know most people think this issue is way overblown and I did too until I almost got kicked out of school my senior year. I learned quick women like you to be direct so if I wanna get with a girl I just go for it. Tried to kiss a girl I’d been working on a project with in the library one day(in a private area), she wasn’t having it and didn’t let me even touch her (good on her; totally her right). I laughed it off and was cool with it, on to to the next one. A week goes by and I’d almost forgotten about it and I get an email for a sexual misconduct hearing. Shit. I go in and listen to this story about me grabbing this girl and basically trying to rape her. The shit she made up was amazing and the thing is I think she actually believed the crap(I think she was shocked/pissed I didn’t act all butt-hurt and didn’t give a fuck). Thank god there were cameras that caught the whole thing and I didn’t get expelled and arrested. Still got fired from my campus job but whatever. Watch your yourselves brothers.

  74. 74
    Han Solo says:

    HH, that article about Russia in the 20′s with no-fault divorce and child support was very interesting. I might use it as part of a future post. They were talking about men having multiple wives and shit. Even back then the apex fallacy was wide at work and the other men with none or little weren’t even really talked about.

  75. 75
    Han Solo says:

    It’s amazing to see overall how much of the female imperative and women are wonderful and men are scum narratives are found in movies, news articles and elsewhere. I happened to see a bit of Friends W/Benefits in between football downs and the gay friend tells him that women are empathetic and loyal and wonderful and much better than men and all the typical BS.

  76. 76
    Han Solo says:

    Here’s a post on how feminists didn’t accomplish much in 2013. However, I made the point that they’ve long since passed gaining equality and have also gained a lot of female favoritism so they don’t need to win anymore, just hold the status quo.

    http://remysheppard.com/feminism-is-worthless

    Good article. I wouldn’t say feminism is dead so much as it accomplished all of its goals and much more. In place of equality, far too many laws are unfairly biased against men and in favor of women. Like splitting up wealth 50/50 upon divorce. Since men earn more than women overall (due to women staying at home with kids and not earning money), much more of the accumulated wealth of a family is from the man’s earnings. Then she can go out and cheat, then make a false VAWA claim and get him kicked out of the house and file for divorce, get the kids, half the loot, child support payments that she doesn’t have to use on the kids and the guy could have been doing everything right all along (except for choosing to marry her).

    Also, a lot of people say they aren’t feminists but they have actually accepted a lot of the feminist rhetoric that women are angels and men have caused all the problems in the world.

    That all said, it is good that feminists weren’t able to accomplish much this year. But at this point, they’re in the lead, they just have to maintain the status quo now and that will keep the favoritism for them in tact.

  77. 77

    Re: 74

    More sources:

    books.google.hu/books?id=8DKLnzsfG5cC&printsec=frontcover&hl=hu#v=onepage&q=divorce&f=false

    country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12555.html

    Early Soviet history was a tough lesson for Western feminists: do not attempt to dismantle patriarchal traditions as long as female economic independence is not feasible and the primitiveness and ineffectiveness of state institutions allow so-called deadeat dads to escape the long arm of the law.

    Another factor is that there was a massive culling of Russian alphas between 1914-20. As we know from scientific research, alphas are the primary risk-takers and adventurers in every society, and such an attitude easily leads to early death in war and social collapse. Thus female competition for remaining alphas was even more fierce, and economic stagnation meant that betas couldn’t fulfill their provider role.

  78. 78

    Re: Russian Alpha males (or should it be “Alfas” out of respect for the Russian Navy’s Alfa-class titanium hunter-killer subs whose performance forced the USN to respond by rapidly developing the ADCAP torpedo program…?).

    -Absolutely. If you have ever been around Russian alfa dogs, they *brazenly* run harems with no apologies. The swag borders on the fabled Idris Elba international-league level. Perhaps this is what happens when a big man soft-polygamy culture becomes institutionalized. You are either in the Winner’s Circle or you basically get SMP scraps, if anything. I went to school with the scions of some of those oligarchs and the apples certainly did not fall far from the tree.

  79. 79

    Re: 78

    That has been the norm in most societies throughout history. Generally speaking, most humans simply aren’t equipped to be terrific wealth creators – they can only create enough to sustain themselves and their children, if that. Only when massive wealth is created is it possible to spread it among the common folk. Otherwise the ruling elite hoards all resources in order to secure its own luxury and power. If you’re a man in such a society, if you’re not the first, you’re the last, as a Brazilian saying supposedly goes. Russia is just one example among many. If a Russian man doesn’t belong to the elite or its minions, he’s usually either an alcoholic, childless, unsexed beta wretch or a philandering alpha lout.

  80. 80
    BuenaVista says:

    BB #53: You asked someone else, but I’m going to reply to you anyway.

    My son’s ripped, get’s paid to climb and jump off mountains backwards, and is a published writer at 23. He landed his first airplane at 11 (though I had to work the rudder pedals). He rides a fixed gear bicycle in the mountains with a 40-pound rucksack 50 miles for minor workouts and a couple of days camping with three candy bars and a bottle of water. (That’s a bike with one gear and no brakes, by way of explanation.) His mom’s an ex-Vogue model. He’s sufficiently hot to be a player. (If the military had its shit together, they would be living outside his door and presenting him with the prospect of his own company command within 12 months, instead of waiting for him to walk into a recruiting station and explain to some sergeant why he’s not a meth-head with a skiing problem.) When he visits his sister in NYC, all the hipsters want to be him, and I’m not going to talk about the girls’ reaction. He destroyed me last fall in the Madison Range in Montana, and I run 5x 8:30 miles most mornings now.

    Approximately 50% of my communications with him are about literature. The other 50% concern how to be a man NOT entrapped by current sexual mores. I don’t want him to be a player because a) I was never a player, and still entrapped; b) I was never a bad guy and still arrested twice under VAWA based on cellphone call complaints; c) I am an exemplary father and NY CPS will have me arrested (and I WILL go to Rikers) if I attempt to attend a parent-teacher conference at my son’s school; d) and the rest of it, which is more lurid. He should not be a player because one out of ten chicks will decide that if she can’t have him, *no one will have him*. This is the essential insight into what causes women to destroy young men: “If I can’t have him no one will.” Today they have the law to make it so.

    That’s the algorithm. Some women do say: If I can’t have him, he’s dead. And they know how the law works. Shakespeare knew this, but the Shrew didn’t have the law on her side too.

    The more attractive and capable the boy, the more likely his being targeted. I disagree with Liz: “options” increase, but do not mitigate, the risk. The more attractive the boy, the more likely that some girl is going to go nuclear on him with college and statutory punishment. This is an extremely bad time to be a desirable male with options.

  81. 81
    BuenaVista says:

    The false rape trope has influenced me greatly lately.

    Field report:

    So I’ve been going out lately with a supposed foreign service woman. Her last three duty stations were a ‘stan, Sudan, and a hotter-yet hellhole — where her best friend’s boyfriend was killed while she was hiding in a safe room.

    She’s a sexual renegade, political lefty, young enough to be my daughter and highly literate. Some of my worst habits have re-emerged: I want to take care of her, protect her, make her happy, etc. She’s rude, she’s dismissive, she’s erratic. She’s badly damaged. If you would like a cinematic version, see ZeroDarkThirty, the redhead agency girl who supposedly finds OBL. Merge her with Lindsay Lohan in The Canyons.

    The other night I was preparing her dinner, at her place in DC: an alternately seared, and steamed whole chicken, spices, off-recipe fruits (she likes, and misses, the desert) thrown in as well. Some crusty bread I’d made. She insults my plan for the asparagus so I just blanch it and serve it cold with a lickety-split vinaigrette. She loves the meal. After dinner, she’s into the rye and I’m into the herbal tea. She mentions that she must have fucked 50x more men than I have women, owing to my “feeble” interest in bourgeois monogamy. I laugh.

    “But … I don’t have any STDs. Also, I can only afford one coerced marriage.”

    She slaps me and I put my hand on her mouth. Then I put two fingers into her mouth. She bites them, hard.

    “Oh really,” I say. We pull back.

    Then she takes her shirt off.

    Okay, I have three thoughts:

    a. this is a test, and she works for the ISI. Which wouldn’t be good.

    b. this is a test, and she is recruiting me for someone locally. Which wouldn’t be so good.

    c. I’d really like to have sex now with the size 0 with her shirt off. (DING DING DING.)

    ***

    In the morning, after I slept on the couch and woke up twice to let in, and let out, the two fucking cats out who came home with her from Lahore and are accustomed to killing DC alley rats all night (these are great cats, but they are beady-eyed killers), while she is making me coffee, I ask her, “So, are you freaking out that I’m still here?”

    “”

    [Gentlemen, that means, "Yes, Why are you still here?"]

    “Got it. Do you have any aspirin, first?”

    “Understand, I don’t have sex for the first time if alcohol is involved.”

    “Why not?”

    “Best way I know to go to jail.”

    “I’m sorry you have had experiences like that.”

    “It’s not my experience, dear, it’s how the world works now.”

    “”

    “Are you a morning person?”

    “Not today. I’m hungover from the Ambien. You had your chance.”

    She was eating my leftover chicken with her fingers when I left.

  82. 82
    Joe says:

    The preponderance of the evidence” standards were designed to make it easier to kick men out of college and prevent them from obtaining a higher education. They were meant to help create an anti male college environment.
    http://antifeministsite.blogspot.com/2011/06/anti-male-college-environment.html
    All of American education is run by feminist groups promoting their anti male agenda.

  83. 83
    Liz says:

    BV, that woman sounds scary.
    Keep in mind things are fresh, so the person you’re seeing (ZeroDarkThirty+ The Canyons) is her ‘representative’…who knows what lies beneath? Her true form could morph into something like a cross between the bunny boiler in Fatal Attraction and Basic Instinct.

  84. 84

    Han Solo

    Minding The Campus has linked to this article.

    Left side, latest commentary

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com

  85. 85
    Han Solo says:

    @gg Thanks for pointing that out. It also got picked up by instapundit which has brought about 8k views so it’s good the word is getting out there. Of course, no doubt the articles themselves, such as the WSJ one by James Taranto are getting hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of views.

  86. 86
  87. 87

    Professor KC Johnson @kcjohnson9 is a premier expert on the Duke lacrosse false rape tragedy. This is his commentary on Taranto piece at MTC.

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2013/12/the_scandal_at_auburn.html#comments

    Commentary on Occidental where no always means no but yes doesn’t always mean yes.

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2013/03/a_college_with_strange_sex_mis.html

    Law professor Eugene Volokh on wrongful convictions in criminal court and what does beyond a reasonable doubt imply?

    http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/02/wrongful-convictions-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  88. 88

    BV, she sounds like an intoxicating-but-potentially-ruinous cocktail of seductive and insane. God help, I love that type. Can you just have fun with this situation for awhile…?

    Does sound like you might have to start keeping some flex-ties and a flash-bang in your overnight bag “shack pack” (which I imagine is probably something stylish from Vuitton), snug in there with the customized 1911 and the antique bomber jacket and the dog-eared works by Salter and Hemingway.

  89. 89
  90. 90

    LOL! Perfect clip!

    BV: Don’t let her drive, man.

  91. 91
  92. 92
  93. 93
    Han Solo says:

    Spawny, good articles, especially 92.

  94. 94
    BuenaVista says:

    Fortunately, she’s been to some driving school in West Virginia. So what we’ve learned is that she steers quite well from the right seat. Because they taught her how to drive after her driver is shot, whether or not she is holding my flask in her right hand. Though I prefer to control the pedals, and do not plan to relinquish, the pedals. Being much larger wearing larger boots, this will not be a problem.

    My go-bag is a simple rucksack from some bike-hippies in Minneapolis, if it is not one of the bags my daughter sells for her old-school American brand. I dislike branded items, unless I’m being paid to display them. I’m reminded of Jack Nicholson (Bobby Dupea) in _Five Easy Pieces_, a movie I really should not have seen as an impressionable adolescent, speaking to Karen Black (Rayette) (R.I.P.): “Rayette, why don’t you take that sign off your tit …”

    More seriously, yes, insanity is seductive. It’s so much better than “Where did *you* go to college?” The insane seek answers to higher questions. It’s Russian roulette, of course, with the insane.

  95. 95
    BuenaVista says:

    Also, it’s funny, the idea that Tom Cruise has had sex four times in one night with a woman. ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

  96. 96
    BuenaVista says:

    Follow-up to #80, and the idea of being a ‘young man with options’:

    It’s just not a good time for that. Really, this is the lesson of Duke Lacrosse: everyone knew that the lacrosse boys were young men with extraordinary personal and professional options: consequently, everyone else was desperate to destroy them. The Duke faculty was envious of the Duke Lacrosse team’s options. Think about that. Think about how hard it is to get tenured at Duke. The tenured faculty of Duke were driven insane with envy and rage — at some gentleman-C earning lacrosse dudes.

    I counsel discretion, serial monogamy, and random acts of chastity for drill. If that’s not good enough, Fort Pierce, Florida, and its practical side, has worked a time or two. (I.e., get off campus and get real.)

  97. 97
    Obsidian says:

    @BV 96:
    “When you have eliminated the probable, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    In other words – Boom.

    What you said…

    O.

  98. 98
    Liz says:

    #96: I’m convinced!
    No son o’ mine will be “playa” on my watch (mostly they take after me in that respect anyway, so no problem…but only one is in highschool now).

    Scary world, this.

  99. 99
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    The best way to keep a young man off player-dom would be a woman actually who is actually worth abandoning other options.

    There’s really not a hell of a lot of them. If there were, why would it even be necessary to get men to NOT try to be players?

  100. 100
    Han Solo says:

    ADBG good point. If a woman were so enjoyable to be around then most guys wouldn’t want to go tomcatting around for others. Lucky is the man who finds such a woman.

  101. 101

    Han Solo

    Yeah, but how many women want to be what so many guys want; a room-temperature fuck doll?

  102. 102
    Han Solo says:

    Richard, I don’t think that most guys actually want that though. Most guys actually do want a woman that loves them and treats them well and has lots of desired sex with them.

  103. 103
    Han Solo says:

    As we know about prostitution, a lot of men have no desire to go with one and many who do don’t find it to be that meaningful or enjoyable, more of it just being better than masturbation.

  104. 104

    Han Solo,

    Most guys would like to have lots of desired sex. But in other times, not so long ago, the emotional connection and the pleasure of her company and her evident pleasure in his company and the mutual attraction was sufficient to keep a relationship going. Sex was on the guy’s mind but not getting it was not a deal-breaker.
    Today, even over at HUS, supposedly telling young women things aren’t as…lively…as advertised giving it up on the third date seems to be agreed to be a requirement. That means earlier might be required. And that doesn’t even cover a BJ as “thanks for the coffee” or whatever.
    It might be difficult for a woman to tell whether a guy likes her as a person if it appears that he likes her because he doesn’t have to exert himself chasing pussy. Handy supply always available.
    Now, most of the talk hereabouts and elsewhere says no sex is a dealbreaker, which is to say, without it the guy moves on. The talk says that’s legitimate. Not for me to judge,but for the woman in the situation, the view might be different. She’s got to screw a guy she hardly knows to get him to hang around long enough to find out if he’s a good guy.
    IOW, if she’s not a room-temperature fuck doll to start, this is going noplace.
    Whatever I would want as a guy, I’m not sure I’d like to be in the woman’s place.
    Women want to screw as much as anybody, but the circumstances are usually different if you’re talking about a LTR.
    Back in the day, I knew many women who would have been great at relationships, and were. Not my type but quality people. Same for most of the women I dated. Didn’t always work out but that wasn’t because they were losers or something.
    Went to a fraternity reunion about twenty years ago. Most guys were married to their first wives–maybe 90%, and that was roughly classes of 63-67. Of the two or three women I found out about from those days who were divorced, it was the guy being a butthead.

    Maybe the quality women are out there, maybe the culture has taught them, or changed them, so that they don’t seem like it any longer. That would be hard to feature.

  105. 105

    […] A friend of mine sent me an article which describes in lurid detail the proceedings of campus rape tribunals.  You can read the article here. […]

  106. 106

    […] them. The lies feminism propped up can no longer be papered over or explained away, and are being exposed for the frauds they are. The pretty lies around us are dying quick and painful […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>