I took the time to transcribe the most recent discussion about this article during the McInnes interview (as of August 10, 2015). So here you will find the latest what Roosh says about the "How To Stop Rape" article. Bottom line is that it was meant to be a thought experiment, a satire, to remind women of their responsibilty for themselves.
The complete interview you can find
here . The following excerpt is taken from Minute 5.18 onwards.
McInnes: “Well, that’s the irony I have found all about your controversy. You wrote an article saying rape should be legal. And before reading it everyone ran with it. My personal belief is because they were so happy they’ve finally found someone that fit the narrative. And rather than getting into the new ones of the discussion that is going on [they just said] “We’ve found a bad man!” and they run off and want to ban you from Canada. But in your argument you are actually trying to prevent women from getting raped whereas the slutwalks and [people who say] “women-are-the-same-as-men”, “they can go and get wasted” and “they can go to any party they want to”. That gets more women raped than your philosophy."
Roosh V: “You know, in that article everyone is quoting as some kind of … I clearly stated what the rules of consent are. I clearly state “No means No”. And I clearly state that the intention of this thought experiment – which is absurd, I mean you can’t legalize violence – is to reduce rape, is to reduce harm. It was a thought experiment to show how if women took more personal responsibility for themselves just like they do for their smartphone, their car or whatever that they own, they would be putting themselves less at risk. I mean a man who parks his car in a bad area, leaves the door open and leaves the key in there is going to be called an idiot if someone actually robs him. But when a woman has fifteen drinks at night and goes home with this sexy man, and in the next day she feels upset about it and misconstrues this event as rape we encourage and celebrate her. So I don’t get it why men have to be responsible for themselves and women, at the same time, when women do not have to be responsible for anything.”
McInnes: “Well, it really is the death of intellect. Cause when someone presents you with this cookie hypothesis that rocks your world the solution is not to scream your fucking head off and have a panic attack. The solution is to “Well, what about…” – and I would take up that solution right now in the near post this week. They had these guys - I think they are Puerto Rican, they are Hispanic. One of them got invited to an locale to fuck some woman. And he would leave the door open and a bunch of other guys come in – two other guys – and gangrape this woman. Here they are. They have the two other guys, they don’t have the main guy yet. Oh wait a minute, they have the main guy but do not have the other guys. They are pictured here [Title: Man charged in gang-rape robberies, 2 suspects still at large. By Kenneth Garger and Dana Sauchelli. August 9, 2015.] A hotel room is essentially private property. Just for the sake of argument. Doesn’t this fall under your legal rape umbrella?”
Roosh V: “If I was being serious with my thought experiment maybe it would. But if people really genuinely think that I would advocate for violence against anyone their IQ has to be under 80. I mean I am having a lot of stone-deaf autistic people - and I have nothing against men who have autism. But obviously something is up there that they cannot tell a satire. It’s almost like Jonathan Swift made his “I like to eat babies argument” now everyone would follow a twitter mob against him. And ban him from wherever country he is in. It’s just absurd. Just as you said, the level of intellect is so low that people can’t even read anymore. They cannot read. They can only read short soundbites disseminated by a biased media to get them up in a fraud.”
