"Lead"
valvadi
This weeks episode is going to focus on interactions with law enforcement. We will discuss how to protect yourself and your rights, how to be be respectful while still exercising your rights, and the parallels between law enforcement and your plate/LTR/Wife/etc. Get ready for a healthy dose of STFU, and more!
@valvadi Somewhere along the line, people forgot what The Red Pill is all about.
The Red Pill doesn't have to be right about everything 100% of the time. It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to address every possible situation with every possible type of woman and every possible type of relationship or explain every outcome in the world. It doesn't have to address all the ills of society and find a way to overcome the evil global agenda.
The only thing The Red Pill needs to do to be viable is be better than the status quo. After that, the rest is just fine-tuning.
Something GLO said recently made me think about this. While talking about his tribe of teenage Evola-worshipping, meme-posting shitlords, he said something like (I'm paraphrasing): Even if you think this is 100% retarded, at least these guys are lifting weights and reading books instead of masturbating and smoking marijuana.
He was right. The status quo would be lost boys jerking off and using drugs. Whatever is or isn't right about the whole movement he's running, it's much, much better than the status quo.
Same with The Red Pill. We are men who did not obtain very good results under the status quo. It wasn't working for us. We found something better. Something that makes us better and gets us better results. Whether or not someone agrees with this particular point or that particular point or thinks certain parts of The Red Pill could be fine-tuned better, it is undeniable that this is better than the status quo.
Read MoreCan someone please explain to me how this site, which was intended to replace TRP Reddit, devolved into a fake alpha dick-measuring contest?
Let's all quit internet machismo and start actually helping dudes who come to us for guidance.
Logical, cogent arguments relating to TRP's main goals are welcome, but for Odin's sake, quit the petty bullshit that is only ruining good content.
So I'm now a week behind. I was invited to a surprise bachelor weekend and was unavailable to post or plan out this week's topic. I'm going finish last week's instead.
The big question is: "Do I really care if I am in a two party consent state? Is it still worth it document consent any way I can even though it may be illegal?"
My firm answer is: No, you should not care, and yes, it is still worth it. Here is why. Typically the issue only comes up in civil lawsuits where the admissibility of a piece of evidence is at issue. A legal recording is admissible, an illegal recording is not. Even if you could face criminal charges for illegally recording in a two party state, the potential penalties for being convicted are exponentially less than the penalties for rape/sexual assault. Realistically, you would only be looking at a fine, if convicted. I will gladly take a fine over the potential to be incarcerated for a period of years.
Let's say you illegally document consent in a two party state; you make a video recording of the sex and she never tells you no - but she doesn't know you made the recording. She goes to the police and you get charged with sexual assault. Any good defense attorney is going to get the rape charges dismissed and also cover your ass for illegally recording.
My belief is that you should always document consent regardless of where you are.
Read MoreThis week's issue is an off-shoot of last week's. We'll be discussing the legalities of documenting your conquests to insure you have documented consent as best as possible. Today's discussion is single party consent v. two party consent v. wiretapping.
The first legal issue with documenting is whether you live in a "single party consent" state or a "two party (really every party) consent" state. In the United States, all but 12 jurisdictions are single party states. This means that only one person involved in the conversation/interaction needs to consent to it being recorded. It is not illegal for me to secretly record every interaction, every day, because I am a party to the interaction and consent to it being recorded. I never have to notify the other person(s) I interact with and my recordings are admissible in court. It might be a bit creepy to record everything but I am not legally prohibited from doing it.
Two party consent states, really every party consent states, require all parties involved to give their consent before one party can legally record the interaction. The 12 two party states are: California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. To legally record your conversations/interactions in these states all parties involved must consent to the recording. There are some exceptions. For example, in California and a few others, it is legal to record a conversation without the other person knowing if you believe it will collect evidence of a serious crime. If you record in these states without consent you could potentially face criminal or civil liability but the real question that I will dive into a bit later in the week is: Is it still worth it to secretly record in two party states even though it might be illegal?
Wiretapping is when an interaction/conversation is recorded but no party to the interaction knows it is being recorded. It is illegal in all states unless you first obtain a warrant/court order allowing you to do it.
Read More@redpillschool I've always wondered why voluntary intoxication removes the ability to consent to sex but doesn't remove intent and liability for nearly every other area of law (aside from some specific intent crimes). If she drives a car drunk, she can be charged with DUI. If she randomly stumbles and falls through a storefront window she is still civilly liable for the damage. If she murders someone she can be charged with anything but murder in the 1st degree. But if she fucks drunk... well the alcohol removed all ability for her to form the requisite intent to commit the act, absolved her of all consequence, and let the man take advantage of her.
Law enforcement, documentation, and ass-covering.
Law enforcement's job is to get enough evidence against you to establish probable cause to charge you with a crime. I was a prosecutor for the better part of a decade, and believe me, that is its sole function. The only analysis an officer undertakes is: "do I have enough to charge." If he does, you're getting cuffed and stuffed. Probable cause is easy to establish and only requires there be a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed. A female alleging that you raped her, combined with her friend corroborating her story, is probably enough to get you charged with some form of rape or sexual assault. The typical fact pattern goes something like this: Random man and woman have consensual, drunken, sex. Next morning woman realizes she has a boyfriend and doesn't wan to look like a slut so she and her bestie go to police station and say she was raped last night. Bestie confirms story that she was drunk and left with a random dude then called her this morning crying. She has a rape kit done and it shows that she had sex last night. Man gets called into police station and asked "did you have sex with slutbag?" his answer should be...SILENCE. But instead he doesn't know what is going on and doesn't want to lie so he says, "yes, we had sex", and before he can say "but it was consensual", he is in cuffs and has made an admission that will be used against him in Court.
Documentation is the key to saving your ass in most, if not all, consent related cases. It is imperative that if you have sex with a random slut, or even a newer plate/gf, you document consent in some fashion. Dirty/kinky texts, voicemails, pictures, audio, or the all-important morning after text of "I had a great time last night", etc., etc., go a long way in proving you obtained consent and realistically, many forms of consent can be used as foreplay. Asking/telling a girl what you are going to do to her later and her response showing anticipation shows she is currently consenting to a future act. Her consent can be revoked at any time, but it at least shows she knew what you intended and was fine with it when disclosed. I've "played a game" with new lays where we both try to get the other to lose composure in public by texting things we will do to one another later in the night. Obviously no one is going to go as far as Dave Chappelle did with his "love contract" skit, but get creative with it. It can be both a turn on and documenting consent at the same time.
Read MoreSo what does consent actually look like? The modern feminist trend is for "affirmative consent" , or a "yes means yes" type of consent contemplated by California in its most recent consent legislation. Here, a female must 1) be able to give her affirmative consent, and 2) actually give her affirmative consent for it to be valid, either verbally or in writing. Why do I say female? Because even though the legislation is constitutionally valid because it is written to be gender neutral, it is always applied in a way that favors woman. Men must always obtain consent from women because men are always considered the aggressor. If a female is drunk or high she is completely incapable of giving her affirmative consent. However, the same does not hold true for a man. I have never seen a successful claim by a man, against a woman, for her failing to obtain his consent to sex while he was intoxicated.
Actual consent looks completely different from the current feminized ideal of "affirmative consent". Actual consent typically takes the form of silence combined with physical intent to engage in the act. Everyone here would agree that if a man is physically escalating toward sex and the woman is verbally silent but kissing him back, she has given her consent. Her actions show her intent and if you intend to act in a specific manner you have given your consent to those actions taking place. This is why pushing past LMR in not rape. A woman's words, which may indicate her desire to stop because she does not want to look like a slut, and her actions, which may indicate that she is ready and willing to fuck, do not align. By disregarding her token resistance she gets what she actually wants. Now is she is telling you no, puling away from you, and putting her clothes back on, by all means stop - that isn't LMR - learn to understand nuance.
Actual consent occupies a grey area that the feminine imperative despises but it is in the grey area that most men find themselves when trying to bed a woman.
Read MoreTopic 1: Consent. The Federal Legal Definition of Consent comes from 10 USC 920. Art.120(g)(7): (A)The term
Issue 1 will be an all-time TRP favorite...consent! On 10/14/19 I will dive head first into what consent looks like, what Blue Pill society thinks it looks like, how law enforcement views consent, how to get it, how to document it, and how to cover your ass - so if shit hits the fan you have less of a chance of non-consensual butt fucking in prison.
3 Followers