Online, it's the women that rape.

It's an inconvenient but incontrovertible factⁱ that the "online threat"ⁱⁱ variety of pseudo-rapeⁱⁱⁱ is a form of typically feminine communication, employed generally by women.^iv

Why do they do it ? Well, for a variety of perfectly sensible, long understood and well documented reasons. Such as :

A. Women shit test. The representation of the activity of sexual intercourse to another woman is perhaps the oldest topic of conversation among women. It allows the sexually experienced subjective woman to judge the sexual experience of the objective woman she's harassing. The reaction of woman to description of sexual intercourse (especially when presented as the nude act, purposefully and deliberately denue'd of the various clothes put on it by the fashions and mores of every generation like on a mutually shared Barbie doll) is mediated by her coy behaviour , and being mostly instinctual it is also mostly honest.

This, incidentally, is why women that fail to respond "adequately" to rape threats (which is to say, women that fail to respond like little girls^v, running away in horror at the naked story of fucking) become, at least as far as the discourse of their peer testing them is concerned, "whores". Women value each other (but not themselves - this is a fundamental tension^vi ) in terms of sexual experience.

B. Women build hierarchies. Always and everywhere, a group of women is a structured group, without exception to the degree the two might as well be synonymous.^vii To quote myself,

mircea_popescu: "If you were planning to kill someone, would you helpfully tell him first ?" << That's not the point. In a normal society, the threat is a fundamental tool to hierarchy building. The socialist state does not want a normally functioning society, but instead this stellar configuration where the state is at the center, and every citizen linked to it to the detriment of all else.

asciilifeform: _Credible_ threat.
mircea_popescu: No, not credible. A threat at all. It works on fundamental structures of the hominid brain, much like flirting makes the girl wet. Which is why I am not ever giving it up. The freedom to threaten is not merely my fundamental, unassailable sovereign property^viii, but moreover essential for the construction of effectual instruments to squash the socialists and their golums.

There's plenty more other perfectly sensible, well understood, long documented reasons - all of which you've never thought about. But now that you've been given a helpful shove, perhaps you may start. Thinking, that is.

1. "Go to Thattommyhall, that kickstarter scamsite, this Internet life, grep for "Sriduangkaew". [↩]
2. Rapists, in the proper sense, do not care about the effects of their act upon the victim. Physical, emotional or otherwise, they do not care. If she dies from the beating (which she deserved and in any case was asking for), if she hangs herself from despair, if she struggles like a worm to bring up a child by herself, all of this is inconsequential to the rapist. He is there, following an instinct, manifesting a fundamental biological imperative. His actions have no more moral content than the weather, at least were we chimps. As far as he's concerned, he is.

   Meanwhile the "online threat" exists entirely out of consideration - if negative - of the victim's feelings. This is not rape anymore than hurricanes are holy water (a confusion actually made, now and again, by various kinds of shaman). [↩]

3. "Rape" understood in its proper sense, as a shorthand for often particularly cruel, vicious and otherwise unexplainable assaults has been diluted conceptually in the past decades by expansion to cover all sorts of fields that clearly are not rape.

   Most important among them, the act of the husband (or practical equivalent, since the similar conceptual dilution of the traditional institution of marriage means few people bother to marry anymore*) to not ask his wife. This is what rape means now, he dared act without asking for permission! To quote an ever relevant G B Shaw,

   We laugh at the haughty American nation because it makes the negro clean its boots and then proves the moral and physical inferiority of the negro by the fact that he’s a shoeblack; but we ourselves throw the whole drudgery of creation on one sex, and then imply that no female of any womanliness or delicacy would initiate any effort in that direction. There are no limits to male hypocrisy in this matter. No doubt there are moments when man’s sexual immunities are made acutely humiliating to him. When the terrible moment of birth arrives, its supreme importance and its superhuman effort and peril, in which the father has no part, dwarf him into the meanest insignificance: he slinks out of the way of the humblest petticoat, happy if he be poor enough to be pushed out of the house to outface his ignominy by drunken rejoicings. But when the crisis is over he takes his revenge, swaggering as the breadwinner, and speaking of Woman’s “sphere” with condescension, even with chivalry, as if the kitchen and the nursery were less important than the office in the city. When his swagger is exhausted he drivels into erotic poetry or sentimental uxoriousness; and the Tennysonian King Arthur posing at Guinevere becomes Don Quixote grovelling before Dulcinea. You must admit that here Nature beats Comedy out of the field: the wildest hominist or feminist farce is insipid after the most commonplace “slice of life.” The pretence that women do not take the initiative is part of the farce.

   Why, the whole world is strewn with snares, traps, gins, and pitfalls for the capture of men by women. Give women the vote, and in five years there will be a crushing tax on bachelors. Men, on the other hand, attach penalties to marriage, depriving women of property, of the franchise, of the free use of their limbs, of that ancient symbol of immortality, the right to make oneself at home in the house of God by taking off the hat, of everything that he can force Woman to dispense with without compelling himself to dispense with her. All in vain. Woman must marry because the race must perish without her travail: if the risk of death and the certainty of pain, danger, and unutterable discomforts cannot deter her, slavery and swaddled ankles will not. And yet we assume that the force that carries women through all these perils and hardships, stops abashed before the primnesses of our behavior for young ladies. It is assumed that the woman must wait, motionless, until she is wooed. Nay, she often does wait motionless. That is how the spider waits for the fly. But the spider spins her web. And if the fly, like my hero, shews a strength that promises to extricate him, how swiftly does she abandon her pretence of passiveness, and openly fling coil after coil about him until he is secured for ever!

   If the really impressive books and other art-works of the world were produced by ordinary men, they would express more fear of women’s pursuit than love of their illusory beauty. But ordinary men cannot produce really impressive art-works. Those who can are men of genius: that is, men selected by Nature to carry on the work of building up an intellectual consciousness of her own instinctive purpose. Accordingly, we observe in the man of genius all the unscrupulousness and all the “self-sacrifice” (the two things are the same) of Woman. He will risk the stake and the cross; starve, when necessary, in a garret all his life; study women and live on their work and care as Darwin studied worms and lived upon sheep; work his nerves into rags without payment, a sublime altruist in his disregard of himself, an atrocious egotist in his disregard of others. Here Woman meets a purpose as impersonal, as irresistible as her own; and the clash is sometimes tragic. When it is complicated by the genius being a woman, then the game is one for a king of critics: your George Sand becomes a mother to gain experience for the novelist and to develop her, and gobbles up men of genius, Chopins, Mussets and the like, as mere hors d’oeuvres.

   ---
   * Just like few people bother taking rape allegation seriously anymore, and for the exact same reasons - the concept has been diluted to meaninglessness.

   As an amusing footnote, this inconvenient fact is explained by the very irresponsible if narcissistic idiots in terms of "conspiracies". It goes something like this : In a society where gold is good money, at step 1 you call all sorts of things that are not gold "just as good money", at step 2 a lot of inflation happens because well, "good" money isn't nearly as good anymore, which brings prices up and real wages down and so on, and at step 3 you don't explain that "well, our irresponsible dilution of currency has resulted in misery across the board" but instead claim that "a conspiracy has ruined our great nation", which is also technically true, but then you go round up all the Jews or something, instead of rounding up yourself.

   Similarly with rape : first they added all sorts of things that were manifestly not rape to an ever expanding definition of "rape". Then people stopped caring about "rape" "victims". And then, the very people that destroyed a traditionally useful institution protecting the minority of victimized women by recasting it as a faux "life experience" every woman could "bond over" at the watercooler came up with "patriarchy", this supposed conspiracy which makes sane thinking people discard inflated concepts. There's no conspiracy involved on the side of reason. The conspiracy is always on the other side. The niggers are the conspiracy. [↩]

4. With my compliments to the niggers looking to revive the conspiracy theory by moving it off "men" to a different ready Jew : no, they're not mostly white. No, they're not predominanly rich. No, they're not generally old. Mostly, predominantly and generally, they're exactly like your constituency. Because they're exactly you.

   Go fig. [↩]

5. Obviously, the "correct" response is to fail the test. If by "correct" you mean "Oh god, please, make it stop!" like a little girl. [↩]
6. The Madonna-whore complex exists in some shape or form in whatever sexual arrangement, because if you ask your slave what she is, she will respond "I am whatever you want me to be", which is both correct and factually accurate.

   The complex is built then jointly by the genders : on the female side, it is me (whatever you want me to be - I don't use my sexual history in my own valuations) vs her (she is sexually experienced, well used, in a word : a whore). On the male side, should males have decided that this is what they want them to be, they'll be Madonna nursing. Should males have decided they want something else, it'll be something else. The general form of that complex is the WYWMTB-whore complex.

   The other woman, as far as a man is interested in her is always going to be a whore to the eyes of his other women (unless he's some sort of cockless dipshit and is not fucking her regularly). Because she's sexually experienced. That is all. [↩]

7. This obviously does not necessarily mean that they admit to it, but then again people generally aren't too inclined to admit to the functioning of their own brain. [↩]
8. In the sense of characteristic, not in the sense of ownership. My freedom to threaten anyone for any reason at any time is as much part of my person as my lungs, and an attempt to cut short either will be dealt with in the same way for the same reasons. [↩]