MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Legalise Rape – New Zealand Meetings

Filed under: General — Downunder @ 11:50 am Tue 2nd February 2016

Supporters of a website led by a man who says rape should be legalised on private property have been invited to meet up in New Zealand.

‘Return of Kings’ founder Daryush Valizadeh has suggested legalising rape on private property was the solution to rape culture.

Updated 3rd Feb 2016

Pro-rape group leader could be barred from New Zealand


Meanwhile, New Zealand men are planning protests in opposition to the Return of Kings meetups.

Auckland man John Palethorpe was part of a group organising a protest against the “pro rape” group.

Hundreds are expected to attend the peaceful occupation – dubbed an “anti-misogyny party” – at Auckland’s Aotea Square on Saturday from 8pm.

Palethorpe said Valizadeh embodied “the sort of aggressive, violent, misogyny women face everyday”.


  1. I’m sure all this ROK stuff is just to make those that oppose our feminist run society look bad.

    I say we should show them our support.

    Comment by mantrol — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 4:20 pm

  2. The guy has been misrepresented. So far as I know he has never actually called for ‘legalizing rape’. It’s the media twisting some hypothetical situation he once brought up. The idea was something along the lines of there being a room, and that by entering this room together two parties have consented to sex (i.e. no rape could occur inside the room). It’s a hypothetical case arguably of relevance to debate on date rape, the requirement that there be ‘affirmative consent’, retrospective retraction of consent, etc.

    Comment by Seamus — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:01 pm

  3. Isn’t he the guy the just tried to ban from entering Canada? It’ll be exactly the same game-plan here. Fear-men-ists aren’t very original. It’s all the horrified and offended white knights jumping all place, lapping up the media spin and regurgitating it all over the place without a seconds thought for further, deeper investigation or thought. He’s still a pure attention-seeker, but hey. Free speech should be for everybody shouldn’t it?

    Comment by bjrodger — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:39 pm

  4. It’s good to see positive comments.

    Yeah, the media is a nightmare – I don’t give anyone but Simon Collins of the NZHerald access to single parents while right wing is in government. There’s a sex war going on with the editorial of fairfax so even if the journalists want to write something positive, their information gets stolen and those interviewed are pushed towards suicide, imo.

    But then again, media articles are good for people to vent, lol.

    Just to throw in something new, this guy is good looking. I doubt he has problems getting laid. Throughout history, it’s the ones who can’t get women easily that want rules to put women at a disadvantage.

    Comment by julie — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:40 pm

  5. this guy has some fun articles. He writes about stupid stuff most of the time, it’s mostly satire. He loves the outrage and attention. Most of the stuff is about self improvement, getting more happiness etc (fearminists don’t want men or people to be happy, misery loves company).

    Comment by J — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:49 pm

  6. Hey umm, if I provoke discussion, feel absolutely welcome to share views. (I for one, enjoy reading & learning from comments). 🙂
    This is extreme media shit stirring, imo.

    Comment by julie — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:55 pm

  7. Nice one J. 🙂

    Comment by julie — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 5:57 pm

  8. This ebook has helped me a shed load.

    Video version of ebook

    Comment by mantrol — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 6:34 pm

  9. In my opinion, this guy is a clever promoter who is deliberately manipulating gullible feminists and media into giving him free publicity for his website and business.

    Comment by JohnPotter — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 7:35 pm

  10. The man himself, in conversation with a woman:

    Comment by Ted — Tue 2nd February 2016 @ 8:08 pm

  11. Ah ha! Australian immigration minister says this man will have his visa revoked if he comes to Australia, under the bad character regulations.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 3rd February 2016 @ 5:30 am

  12. We have a problem with ‘Toxic Masculinity’?

    Surprise, surprise, John Palethorpe just happens to be a ‘teacher’ from the Green Party.

    Comment by Downunder — Wed 3rd February 2016 @ 6:47 am

  13. I find his MO is the same as the Nigerian bank scammers. The deliberatly misspell and write poor letters, so the only ones calling them are the stupid/gulliable people who they can manipulate, ie preselection.

    Roosh deliberatly seeks bad publicity to drive dumb people into his con artist lectures, and drive away the sane ones who would criticise him in front of his audience.

    And yes the politicians and wanabe activists are helping him.

    Comment by JnF — Wed 3rd February 2016 @ 10:58 am

  14. Toxic masculinity! It’s simply gender hate speech. What if one were to talk about ‘toxic Maori nature’ ‘toxic homosexuality’ or ‘toxic womanhood’? Would that be ok? Don’t expect so. But when it comes to men, any denigration is ok it seems.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 3rd February 2016 @ 5:23 pm

  15. The article in question.

    Comment by JnF — Wed 3rd February 2016 @ 10:26 pm

  16. I haven’t looked at this guy’s stuff, but wondered, with ‘return of kings’ if he was going down the road of every man’s home is his castle.

    Comment by Downunder — Thu 4th February 2016 @ 11:42 am

  17. Thanks JnF, very helpful to read his actual published opinion that has offended people so much.

    Mr Valizadeh’s reasoning is very poor. This may reflect low intellect but is more likely to be deliberate gamesmanship, making suggestions that are clearly illogical and ridiculous, pretending to be genuine yet designed to be very provocative, under the motto ‘any publicity is good publicity’. It seems silly even to consider Mr Valizadeh’s idea as serious, however, here we go:

    His predicted outcome of fewer rapes will be a fallacy because
    (i) While the offence rate of rape will drop significantly this will mainly be because rape is no longer an offence in most of the situations it currently happens, whereas the behaviour of forcing sex on someone will increase greatly.
    (ii) People may take more care to avoid potential rape situations but they can’t be expected to live abnormally constrained lives to that end, and the actual downward influence on rape behaviour through taking more precautions against it will be quite small.
    (iii) It will be easy to lure people into one’s room, e.g. on the promise that no sexual behaviour will be attempted, then simply force sex on them knowing it’s not illegal.

    His suggestion seeks to redefine rape as something other than subjecting another person to sexual intercourse by force. The right not to be forced into sex is overwhelmingly justified on many grounds including the right to personal choice, the risk of pregnancy, STD, injury with possible urogenital or reproductive difficulties, and severe, enduring emotional harm likely for most victims. It’s a deeply threatening issue for women and no joking matter, and it’s important that men’s activists demand the right for men and women to have strong legal and practical protection from forced sex.

    Having said that, it’s clear that feminists have redefined rape greatly so now it includes all manner of sexual activity that wasn’t forced, wasn’t sexual intercourse and where various forms of apparent consent are retrospectively made to disappear. I guess if femaleists are allowed to redefine rape unfairly and to ridiculous extremes, maybe maleists should also be allowed to.

    Nevertheless, some of Mr Valizadeh’s observations and challenges are valid and important. Why, when a man and a woman who are both drunk have sex is it only the female for whom the drunkenness removes her responsibility for her participation? Why, when a woman gets drunk and has sex is someone else held responsible for her behaviour whereas when she gets drunk and drives a car she is seen as responsible? Why are we frequently entertained with signs such as ‘Thieves operate here; don’t leave valuables in your car’ while any recommendation that women should take more care to keep themselves safe is cried down as ‘victim blaming’?

    Fair and reasonable laws against sexual assault are crucial to a civilized society. When those laws are extended ad absurdum to become unfair, unreasonable and, for example, convenient tools of entrapment or revenge, that doesn’t make society super-civilized but instead regresses it into a serfdom.

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 4th February 2016 @ 1:53 pm

  18. Considering this stuff gave me an idea. A big problem now is that it’s almost impossible to know what behaviours exactly (beyond the obvious ones) can lead to prosecution for sexual assault, what amounts to sufficient consent or how to protect oneself against false accusations. (I challenge anyone to try to find a list of descriptions of all the behaviours that can amount to sexual assaults and what distinguishes them from legal behaviour. For example, touching someone on the shoulder can result in conviction for indecent assault when this is assumed by the Court to have been ‘sexually motivated’, but no clear guidelines for this have been made available to the public. Men are now sitting ducks for prosecution regarding behaviour they have not been told is illegal.)

    One solution might be to have a general agreement perhaps with a sign on the door to one’s room stating something like this:
    By entering this room and signing below:
    – you agree that you are over 16 years of age and you are fully competent to make the decision to enter this room;
    – you agree that you understand and agree with every part of this notice;
    – you consent to be subjected to sexual approaches, attempts to initiate sexual activity, and sexual touching without undue physical force;
    – you consent to all sexual and other activity that you participate in unless you clearly and unambiguously state that you do not wish to continue the activity;
    – you understand that by clearly and unambiguously stating you do not wish to participate or continue to participate in any particular sexual activity or sexual activity generally, all attempts to involve you in sexual activity will cease;
    – you agree to leave this room as soon as reasonably possible after stating you do not wish to engage in sexual activity;
    – you affirm that you have reliably and properly taken contraceptives to avoid pregnancy;
    – you affirm that you are free of known sexually transmitted diseases.

    Wouldn’t that be romantic?

    Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 4th February 2016 @ 2:25 pm

  19. I like this guys view of Roosh the rapist

    Comment by mantrol — Thu 4th February 2016 @ 8:36 pm

  20. The guy is a opportunistic self promoter. Deliberately making provoking statements. I don’t particularly like his methods not would I advocate supporting him because I think it would be detrimental to what can be achieved using less offensive methods. I’m not sure whether he is the male equivalent to Julie Bindel (The feminist who advocated putting all men into concentration camps) or Borat. Perhaps a bit of both. Some of his comments are quite funny.

    The “legalising rape” comment was taken out of proportion by the media that loves to vilify people. He said it but has publicly stated that it was in a sarcastic article and that he, nor his supporters advocate legalising rape.

    It is interesting to see though that people that are excersising their legal right to free speech are publicly threatened with a beating and the media encourages it.

    Comment by prouddad — Fri 5th February 2016 @ 10:11 am


    Comment by prouddad — Fri 5th February 2016 @ 10:13 am

  22. Rape Apocalypse suffers performance anxiety and is hiding in mothers basement-
    White Knights impotent fury at having no Damsels to rescue.

    Comment by John Brett — Fri 5th February 2016 @ 3:25 pm

  23. What, him and his wife are hiding in mothers basement?? haha

    I wonder how many people have actually read the “how to stop rape” article in question?

    The reaction to this Roosh guy shows how mental the world has become.

    Comment by mantrol — Fri 5th February 2016 @ 3:53 pm

  24. This guy is keeping British politicians amused, thank God we have the TPPA protests here for a distraction.

    Comment by Downunder — Fri 5th February 2016 @ 6:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar