re: What’s up with all the drugging girls at bars and parties

quote:

---

2¢

---

Grab ‘em by the pussy!

They can't say no if they can't speak

quote:

---

What is “the date rape drug”?

---

Reefer

quote:

---

I love how people think that just giving drugs away to strangers in bars in hope that they will pass out and the creep would be able to take them home is some epidemic.

Like Halloween candy laced with drugs.


People don’t just give that shite out for free

---

Agree 100%

I’d estimate the number of claimed druggings to actual actual druggings is 500-1000 to 1.

quote:

---

Trend? It's been happening for years. Happened to two girls I knew in college in the early 90's. Think about college, then think about what kind of loser has to drug a girl to get laid in college. Sad.

---

I was in college in the mid ‘90s, and it was prevalent enough then that we had mandatory floor meetings about the issue as soon as we moved into the dorms. For all the good it did.

It may be the case that a significant portion of women who publicly claim to have been victims of this kind of assault are exaggerating or lying; I don’t really have the facts to dispute that. You could even argue that public claims are more likely to be false by mere virtue of the fact that they’re ... well, public. Either way, I’m sure women have lied about it, and I say (with no lack of irony) frick the liars. They’re disgusting bottom dwellers who destroy the reputations of innocent men AND the credibility of genuine victims, and they should rightly be prosecuted—though I’ll admit that’s probably a pipe dream at this point.

But what some of you seem to be failing to consider is whether those public claims are an accurate reflection of the last 25-30 years of having those drugs readily available, and what proportion of genuine drug-related assaults result in any sort of report or charges filed. All I can say is that on my campus in the 90’s, it was precisely ZERO. Even in cases where multiple witnesses verified that an individual was in possession of these drugs, and multiple women were involved in multiple incidents, the perpetrator was never held responsible. If some of you think that at least a remnant of this bulletproof mentality couldn’t possibly carry over to the next generation, you’re really not looking at this objectively. The Brock Turner case alone is a pretty sobering example of how much the “boys will be boys” attitude persists, even if the circumstances aren’t exactly the same. Pursuing sex with a woman who says no or is too impaired to give meaningful consent is already a step too far, but putting drugs in her drink to ensure she can’t say no or give meaningful consent takes things to the level of absolute depravity.

Like most societal issues, this one exists on a pendulum. 25 years ago, a woman had nothing to gain by going public; all she could realistically expect was for things to get worse. Now going public often results in an immediate outcry against the alleged perpetrator, whether he’s guilty or not. One type of violation doesn’t excuse the other, though, nor should it ever be used as a tool to silence victims on either side.

Edit: As to the part I bolded, I’ll just say that keeping extremely disoriented women in very dark rooms can be perceived as a cover for a lot of ... shortcomings. Those of us who found each other after encounters with a common perpetrator all agreed on that.

quote:

---

Shaking that bottle. The W.Virginia mating call

---

"Hey baby. Wanna go 'burn up the sofa' heh heh?"

quote:

---

The thirst is real. And entitled American women who are 5's that think they deserve a jacked 6'3" guy who makes 6 figures are now commonplace. Single moms with mystery meat kids that want 'men' (LMAO) to 'step up' and take responsibility for the woman's boneheaded decisions.

Basically many young women think they deserve OT posters as husbands/boyfriends. The sad fact is, that we, as the upper 1% of men, simply cannot satisfy them all. I read here that as many as 60% of top SMV men are unfaithful, but even at that ratio, there still just isn't enough top choice OT manhood to go around. The 40% of us who don't F around on our wives and break up our families could be blamed, especially if you ask soybois, manlets, and feminist battle bitches.

Online dating and feminism (IE low value womb lobbying) caused this IMO.

Eventually, when feminine primacy is the order of the day and when female sexuality is fully unleashed, the top 5% of men will be banging 80% of the women and have harems.

The rest of men? Look at muslim countries. A lot of goat sexing, ghey, and suicide attacks.

Personally I prefer the old model of monogamy, where lower tier men have a chance of having a wife and a family. That model builds civilizations. As a top tier man, I'm getting laid either way but I do understand that the needs of civilization outweigh the needs of any individual, even myself.

The feminine-centric model currently in play in the dating market dates from our primitive hunter-gatherer days. In those times, DNA studies have demonstrated conclusively that for every 1 man that reproduced, 17 women did so.

That's the feminine primary sexual order.

Men invented monogamy so the lesser men would work and build instead of raping, pillaging, and buggering.

Don't date ho's. Wrap it up. If she went black she's never welcome back. And remember, the higher her 'N' the higher the chance she will end up divorced.

No LTR for high N count females, only pump and dump if I were a young man today.

The drugging is an outcry of pain and frustration from legions of men with SMV<7, now ruled out of the sexual marketplace by entitled women.

2¢

---

This is goldennugget