Saturday 27 October 2012

Does Rape Confound Game? (Part III): Jimmy Savile, King of Soft Rape

The two posts I made at the start of last year arguing that rape confounds Game have become iconic. In fact, they attract more hits that the rest of my posts put together. In simple terms, these two articles claimed that intra-male sexual competition has obviated the need for women to evolve a complex sex drive. Unequal male reproductive success has not occurred because women made mating choices; it occurred because women had no mating choices. Powerful men mated with many women because they killed off or enslaved male rivals; female ‘choice’ simply had no place in reproductive outcomes. And so the whole ‘Game’ argument – that female choice has sculpted human evolution – is discredited. In sum, what little female sex drive that evolved is both weak and dysfunctional. Unlike the male sex drive with its voracious hunger for youth, health and beauty, the female sex drive lacks any functional focus. And this explains why women prefer bums, retards and losers to successful, intelligent men: their 'unevolved' sex-drive lacks ‘evolutionary logic’.

One valid objection to this theory is that mass rapes of women by military conquerors are actually quite rare in history. They have happened, though; and the recent Balkans conflict shows they still happen. However, in this article I hope to introduce a new concept to the debate: soft rape. If we were to label direct sexual coercion ‘hard rape’, soft rape is its indirect counterpart; the use of socio-economic power to engineer situations where coercive sexual activity can occur without legal redress.

Soft Rape confounds the underlying assumptions of Game just as readily as its hard counterpart. And it explains why female reproductive urges remain weak and illogical in exactly the same way: intra-male sexual competition obviated the need for a complex, discriminatory female sexuality to have ever evolved. And so it never did: which is why females seldom use pornography, or why male prostitutes cater exclusively for a male clientele, or why many women confuse incontinence with orgasm.

The recent stellar exponent of soft rape has to be Sir Jimmy Savile. A brief look at Savile’s life suggests how males can use soft rape techniques to secure sexual access to many young women, even those of illegal age – and get away with it.

Savile was born in Leeds – an industrial city in the north of England – in 1928. Soon tiring of a coal-miner’s short, hard life, he began to manage night clubs in the late 1950s. American youth culture was spreading to Britain, post-War austerity was in decline and the way lay open for intelligent, driven men like Savile to make their mark. Savile became a famous ‘disc jockey’ in Manchester; in fact, he is credited with inventing the use of two turntables. Success followed success. By the 60s, he was a national celebrity, presenting TV shows like the execrable Top of the Pops. By the 70s he had become a national treasure - a working class hero who juggled charity work with his many media commitments. Royalty, politicians and celebrities alike sought his sage advice. Despite his lack of formal education, Savile had great native intelligence: he was a member of Mensa. Until his death last year, the man was lionized as a kind of living saint.

And then the revelations began.

'King Jimmy' had been using soft rape techniques to engineer sexual encounters with young girls for over fifty years. His charity work created a shield of sainthood around him, inhibiting media speculation about his sexuality. His connections ensured that young women would submit to him in order to advance their careers. And his wealth meant that he could even abuse his own female relatives with impunity – they and their families were financially dependent on him. His great-niece says:
'If we blabbed on Jimmy or told tales, the fame that surrounded him would've gone. And I loved to say that Jimmy Savile is my Uncle - I loved to say it, it made me proud. But for him to suddenly be destroyed over something like this, the family would have had nothing.'
In sum, Savile’s status meant he could get copious quantities of sex without being 'attractive' to women. Charm or looks never entered the equation. Rather, his social and economic power made women - even his own relatives - defenceless before him. Not only that, he could enjoy their bodies without legal redress or media intrusion.

And so we see how soft rape must have operated throughout history.  Together with the more forceful hard rape, soft rape could well have obviated female sexual evolution altogether. Powerful males used their position to gain mating access and their wealth ensured more of their offspring survived. Religious authority creates many opportunities for soft rape, too – a license for it, in many respects. The female predilection for magic crystals and unctuous sentiment has always given religious leaders huge scope for tangential coercion.

So the charge that hard rape has not occurred with sufficient frequency to obviate the evolution of female sexuality falls apart. Soft rape has surely been an omnipresent dynamic in human evolution, becoming ever more powerful with the rise of complex societies. Indeed, the life of Jimmy Savile suggests its ongoing influence today, in a post-feminist matriarchy. In a way, just being born with property or money is a kind of soft rape in economically-polarized societies like the United States. Again, if a male is born into a certain class or ethnic group he has certain reproductive advantages (or disadvantages) in relation to other males. For example, upper class males are far more likely to reproduce than their underclass counterparts. Together, soft and hard rape explain why men nurture a sharp, logical desire for youth and beauty; while women court thugs and misfits - and western societies spiral ever further towards chaos. 

PS: Hello to the guys at Canal Bufalo. Long may Brazil remain the most liberated country on earth!


  1. Another great article Rookh. I enjoy reading your articles as you describe feminism, female mate choice and why western women prefer thugs over good, educated men.

    I live in America and what you say about female mate choice is 100% correct. I see young women passing over educated, good men for thugs and high school dropouts. It's amazing what type of men women in anglo countries go for.

    In anglo countries, nice guys really do finish last!

  2. Thank you for remember us, i am not from canal do bufalo, but i am following canal do bufalo and your site Dr. Kshatriya, for six months.
    Sadly Brazil don't remain so liberated. Feminism has growing so powerful, we have a lot of problems, like "lei maria da penha" (brazilian VAWA), indeed feminism is a growing pain in my ass...
    MSM is overwhelming feminist, also the courts.
    Congratulations for your book, i am eager to read it.
    Sorry my poor english,
    Greetings from Brazil.

  3. Rookh:
    As a collorary to your analysis, I would add that not only did these women offer themselves to Saville; but the current media hysteria and scandalisation is an attempt to exonerate Anglo females and blame their 'exploitation' on the now-deceased Saville.

    We see the same dynamic in 'hard rape' (or abuse) cases. In many of these instances, the woman was involved with a male known to be a dangerous and dysfunctional thug. But women are always portrayed as the innocent victims of such men.

  4. James Bond:
    I also live in America, and wholeheartedly concur. I see otherwise desirable females with dysfunctional, unhygenic louts every day of the week here!

  5. As a corollary to the evolutionary differences between men and women, consider the difference in size between the XY gender chromosomes.

    A fema-fuckwit would say that the Male Y chromosome is shorter 'therefore' it is less 'significant'. But we are smarter than that, as we recognize that evolution at the molecular level includes the removal of junk genes; so that smaller is actually more evolved.

    Consider: chimps have an extra pair of chromosomes compared to humans; and hermit crabs have in excess of 127 chromosomes pairs. Does that mean to the fema-fuckwits, that chimps and crabs are more evolved than feminists, who only have 23 pairs?

    Of course the more intelligent fema-fascists (they're the ones that tell the fema-fuckits what to think and say) would point out that XX creates a functional woman, whilst YY would be a defective. But the redundancy of the XX female chromosome pair means that many of the genes in women are Lyonised, that is turned off. And presumably they have the advantage of turning off the 'least effective' allele. And of course it is the man that sees, sexually, that advanced allelomorph, and chooses to mate with it; thus advancing the human race according to sexual eugeny.

    Put simply, it is the bearer of the short sex chromosome that evolves the species via sexual choice. In birds for example, I believe it is the female which has the shorter sex chromosome, hence the male birds have to look pretty, sing, and dance about.

  6. *In birds for example, I believe it is the female which has the shorter sex chromosome, hence the male birds have to look pretty, sing, and dance about.*

    Some scientists argue that birds' feathers evolved for that very reason - male dinosaurs would use them in their mating displays. The longer their feathers grew and the higher they jumped, the closer they got to flight. In short, birds owe their flying abilities to male 'performance', exactly as you describe. Flight was an unintended consequence of 'female' behaviour by male dinosaurs.

  7. On Friday afternoon I went to a Starbucks in one of the most affluent neighborhoods in Mexico City. I took my coffee and sit next to a table where four upper middle class nice young girls were glued to a video they were watching on a tablet. They were so absorbed that they didn't notice I could over see what they were watching. After watching the video two times, one of the women frantically texted the URL to her contacts. The other girls stayed watching the video over and over again. Hadn't they been in a public place, they would have started masturbating.

    1. wow, I can see why the feminists will have a blue fit at that one. I still don't understand why so many women seem to respond to that kind of thing, but then I weirdly like women and don't much like violence, especially to women. And that's despite my first ever serious girlfriend telling me her favourite sex fantasy was being raped and could I please rape her, or at least simulate it.

      The success of 50 shades and its ilk being a further case in pont. Although the female comments I have read all seem tor ate the romance of the story as the key pont, and the BDSM etc as titillating fun on the side.

  8. Santiago

    The gulf between what women *really* want and the feminist hysteria decrying what women *really* want is fascinating.

    It is notable that Savile's many 'victims' did not have too many complaints about their treatment at the time. Indeed, most of the young girls he describes deflowering in his several autobiographies still haven't raised any objections.

    1. "Indeed, most of the young girls he describes deflowering in his several autobiographies still haven't raised any objections."

      Firstly, no-one has yet claimed that every single female that was touched by Savile in his lifetime did not consent to it.

      Secondly, Savile was most probably a psychopath and almost certainly a pathological liar. In all likelihood, those girls who let Savile 'deflower' exist only in his imagination.

      You seem to be a big admirer of this man. I'm guessing that had you met him as a child (under 16 if you didn't already know), you would have let him do some pretty nasty stuff to you - after all, you claim to know a lot about what children want to do with old men. I mean, how else would you think this despite the contrary testimony of the victims of paedophiles? It must come from your own personal experience, right? Pervert.

    2. This is what Scarecrow calls 'shaming language', right?

  9. As a lady friend of mine put it, many young women / girls are gagging for it, especially from a celebrity.

    Its quite interesting to read radical feminist views of women's sexuality (seems that basically women who have an interest in for example BDSM have been conditioned by the patriarchy and don't know they are being raped.

    In the radfem view most women don't realise they are conditioned by the patriarchy, because its such a powerful conspiracy we patriarchs perpetrate. Although men are also more stupid then women. But despite our stupidity we manage a grand conspiracy to suborn women.

    I remember as a student that the then leader of the student union, a woman, declared that all sex between man and woman was rape.

    My girlfriend came round brandishing a porn mag and suggested we read this and then have sex. Poor thing clearly didn't know I was raping her, and I didn't have the heart to tell her.

  10. Ah, I knew it wouldn't be long before Rookh started to openly extol paedophilia. Let's not forget most of the children molested by Savile were not seeking celebrity, but instead were effectively cornered in hospitals and various institutions for vulnerable/ troubled children. Basically Savile knew he had to choose children who would not be believed if they came forward - that's why he chose mostly (there was at least one male victim) female children.

    1. I know Thomas Szasz has decried psychiatry as a racist pseudo-science. All the same - see a shrink.

  11. I am rather unhappy about the use of the term 'soft rape' for it implies - as is perhaps intended, that all sexual intercourse is 'Rape' which is of course what some virulent Feminazis maintain. I would argue that in a Hobbesian state of nature (which seems to be what is being described) the concept of Rape can have no meaning: rape is essentially a crime against men in civilzation - the sexual possession of what is not the rapers to use as he sees fit, and is a crime not against the woman but against modesty and thus marriagability/female chastity.

    I don't want to get into the question of Sir Saville (I only met him once) and neither I nor anyone else knows the whole story, but the idea that those Top of the Pops groupies were some sort of victim (as they threw themselves at him) is surely nonsense. He is a scapegoat to assuage our sentimentality towards rapacious young women whom we chose to pretend are innocent children. It seems to come from the same sentimentality that had half the country crying over that slut and adulteress (and traitor) Diana, Princess of Wales.

  12. Anon1638:
    'Paedophilia'---don't make everybody laugh. These women were not 'children' except by the puritanical/feminist standards of the Anglosphere.

    Both my grandmothers were married and raising families at the same age of these 'children' supposedly 'molested' by Savile.

    In a less sexually repressive culture this 'scandal' would barely even have been noticed.

  13. Opus;
    Very well said. Really this whole campaign against Savile resembles more of a mediaeval witch-hunt than anything else, with male sexuality substituted for the 'devil's pact.'

  14. Hello, Rookh and good article.

    I'm Brazilian and I have to say that this country is not so liberated from feminism as you think, although from what I know the situation here is slightly better that in America.

    Thak you for mentioning the guys at Canal do B├║ffalo, they do a great job in educating man against the feminist's agenda.

  15. I'm supposing that you would not apply the term 'soft rape' to actions performed by Jonathan King on five teenage BOYS in the 1980s...
    VICTIM 1 told the jury: "It was exciting. He gave me a lift down to Luton and met my parents. For me it was contact with a famous man. It was something to tell my friends". Asked why he had returned about five times over a period of time, he said he had been attracted to the "idea of being famous".

    Mr King was always very good at telling you he was on television and videos, and how people were always on the look out for kids,"

    Asked why he had not told anyone about the assaults, he said: "I hoped, I suppose as a child, to make something of my life."

    VICTIM 2, 14 at the time, kept in contact with King and visited his home a further five or six times, when similar sexual activity took place. He said, "I thought he was my friend. I liked the aura. I did not like him buggering me."

    VICTIM 3, 14 when he met King, was "confused" but felt he could trust King because he was famous, he said, adding: "I blanked it out and we listened to some more music. I was embarrassed by it. It seemed so totally bizarre."

    King later kept in contact by phone and invited him to London again.

    On another occasion, he said, King tried to bugger him but he resisted. He was so upset by the assault that King drove him home to Shropshire, advising him not to tell his parents.

    VICTIM 4, 15 at the time of the attacks, told the jury that King "started talking about the entertainment industry and mentioned names of friends. He mentioned a gentleman named Elton John. There were gold albums on the walls.

    "He said he could get me some employment ... as an actor. He was waffling on about the industry. I was on my own in London. I did not have any friends. Any companionship or help in establishing oneself would help."

    VICTIM 5, 15 at the time, visited King's home five or six times over some months.

    What is clear in all these cases is that children trust and worship celebrities. Men like King and Savile pursue careers in entertainment so that they can gain access to children. And they choose very carefully their victims: the naive, the unwordly, the troubled, the lonely, the unhappy. What ensues after sexual assault is almost always a strong sense of confusion, denial, guilt and fear for the victim. Very often the child victim might feel that he or she owes the perpetrator something for their time.

    Rookh, your article ultimately incites rape and paedophilia by shifting responsibility to its victims.

    1. 14 was well within the age of consent outside the sex hating rape obsessed anglosphere and you are being obtuse calling 14 year olds children (pedophilia) I was sexually active at 14 (although not with adults and I find a man in his 30s sexing teens distasteful, i don't think it is anything more than distasteful and is certainly not a crime) and I was fully aware of what I was doing.

      Get over yourself you repressed weirdo, not everyoe I the world has the same screwed up hatred of males and male sexuality that Anglo women do. Thankfully you are going extinct as more of your men embrace women who treasure male sexuality, not dispise and seek to control it.

    2. Ok, paedo... what you're saying is that people who don't want to have sex with children are repressed. That is fucked up!

    3. Ahh, "So you're saying X" the strawman, the last idea of the dull mind. Create an opinion, then refute it.

      An adult desiring a post-pubescent is personally and culturally distasteful to me, not criminal. Including women who masturbate to posters of a 14 year old Justin Bieber.

      Misinterpret the precise definition of my opinion however you like. The great thing about anglo women is that nobody really cares what you think, and everyone is glad to watch your numbers dwindle into irrelevancy. Apparently, including a large number of your own men, if demographics are any indication.

  16. Justin Bieber is 18 - an adult, and two years over the age of consent (is it a coincidence that all men hate Justin Bieber, or is it a deep-seated, gnawing, unspeakable, breathless jealousy?) And I was not 'being obtuse', nor was I being particularly sharp. The law says that a person under the age of 16 is a child - it is perfectly clear, that is all. Sex with a person under 16 is a criminal act.

    Puberty is not a guide to adulthood or sexual maturity. In fact, sexual abuse can often halt or trigger puberty. Some 8-year-olds now go through puberty. And if you belive it is acceptable to have sex with a pubescent 8-year-old, you really need to seek help before it's too late.

    1. Thankfully, not only do physhcologists not consider attraction to post-pubescents a pathology, the DSM IV doesn't even define it as a paraphilia!

      So not only are you wrong, but the medical community would give someone attracted to post-pubescents a clean bill of health! No help needed!

      However you may need help getting over whatever bizarre fear of sex and males you may have. As clinical Erotophobia is very much a pathology.

      All the best in 2013, sounds like you'll need it, suicide is never the answer, remember that. :)

  17. I’m happy that you shared this helpful info with us
    London Escorts Agency