keep looking.

You can find all information here, on their site: https://www.collectiveshout.org/motherless

What happened? Motherless, a huge porn site, was catched at spreading videos of women apparently asleep [on drugs] while being sexually assaulted. Activists also discovered videos of upskirting, hidden filming, and other forms of violence that imply a lack of consent on the part of women. It's not "the moderation can't handle with such big number of uploaded videos" or that they're unable to delete them. The site's description clearly demonstrates its creators' attitude toward such content: "moral free hosting," "home to more than 20,000 videos of so-called ‘sleep’ content uploaded by users", "we bear no responsibility," "blame the perverts, not us." More details & proofs here:

This is literally the same situation as with Dominic Pelico's case, with the difference that it's much easier to find rape videos and "advices" about how to drug your wife into unconsciousness, because the site is publicly accessible.

And YOU WILL NOT BELIVE me what else was discovered — the former [and maybe real present] owner and President of this online Rapeland has the similiar name as the man who was convicted of sexual exploitation of children. And, what is important, of children who were sleeping at this moment. And now it is impossible to find information who is he for this company rn. So interesting, isnt it?

Details here:

Anyway, despite the fact are they the same person or not, rape footages are still here, on Motherless.

So, as always:

• nobody wants to take responsibility for providing a platform for the growth of rapist communities and the uploading of crime footages

• every company or person bounded with Motherless says they are not involved and knew nothing (but they continue to provide their services to this "client", supporting the existence of this site)

• everyone knows everything, but they continue to pretend to be blind

So, what we can do?

Some time ago, thanks to the Collective Shout efforts, games created specifically for violent, rape-related content have been removed from Steam. Together we have a lot in our power to do. 1) Spread the information. Look for culprits. Ask questions. 2)Click the first link in this post, it will take you to Collective Shout's site. Here you could write a letter to Google and other organizations that support Motherless. Sign it. Send the form to your friends.

Other people have always rushed to console me when I say this -- "you can learn to get good at it! I was the same way before I had kids!" But like. I don't want to change. I like my life and I like doing things the way I want to do them. In many ways I'm a lot like the woman who raised me, who I can best describe through the anecdote that she didn't let us have balloons on our birthdays because there was a chance they could pop and make a loud noise that would hurt her ears. I love her and I always will, but there was a lot of warmth and comfort I needed that she just wasn't able to give me and I know I would probably be the same way. It wasn't her choice to have to raise me. I get to make a choice that she didn't.

One feminist shared a link on her tg channel to the study mentioned above, which addresses the issue of sexualized violence. It summarizes the findings of an anonymous survey of approximately 1,200 men who had committed acts of violence. I want to bring your attention ti the most important part of it [+will attempt to translate to my native language]. If you wish to evaluate the methodology, sample data, other technical aspects of the paper, or the literature review, you can do so via the link above; the article has NO paywall, so you can view or download it for free, or cite it in your own writing (academic sisters never sleep🤜🤛). So, let’s get started:

Одна из соратниц поделилась в своем тгк ссылкой на исследование выше, затрагивающее тему сексуализированного насилия. Оно обобщает результаты анонимного опроса около 1200 мужчин, совершивших насилие. Я постараюсь перевести здесь наиболее важную часть из него (см ниже, после англ версии), а также оригинальные цитаты. Если вы хотите оценить методологию, данные о выборке и прочие технические аспекты статьи, а также их литературный обзор, вы можете сделать это по ссылке выше, у статьи НЕТ пейволла, вы можете бесплатно ее посмотреть / скачать / ссылаться на нее при написании своих статей (академическая сестрия не дремлет). Итак, поехали:

○ Abstarct

Few studies survey men who have remained undetected after engaging in acts of sexual aggression against women. Most survey women who were targets of sexual aggression or else survey men who consent to being identified. Using anonymous surveys of 2,689 U.S. and Canadian men (18–34 years), we aimed to assess rates of self-reported sexual aggression, reports of strategy effectiveness at forcing known reluctant women into sex, and men’s views of the circumstances, motivations, and positive and negative outcomes. Men reported occasions where they tried to get a woman to engage in sex that they knew she did not want and to which she had not consented. The women were individuals with whom the men shared no prior romantic or sexual history. Overall, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to get a woman to have sex who they knew did not want sex and had not consented. Most of these occasions (65%) resulted in successfully forcing the woman into sex. All of the 36 strategies generated from formative work were reported by at least some men; the average number ever used was 8.94. Consistent physical pressure and verbal coercion were common; overt force, including physical restraint and use of pain, was less common but not uncommon. Men who viewed themselves as better than same-aged male peers “at getting what they want sexually from women” used more forceful strategies. The men persisted for many reasons, most often because they were horny (38%) or because the opportunity arose (28%). They reported many positive outcomes from these interactions; most (70%) perceived no negative outcomes. Using anonymous survey methods provides a novel channel to capture men’s reports of the factors scaffolding their use of sexual aggression. Implications for prevention and making long overdue inroads into reducing rates are discussed.

○ Results

1) Use of Strategies to Get a Woman to Have Sex

Of the final sample of 2,689 men, 95.1% reported having recently used at least one of the strategies to force or coerce a woman to have sex, addressing our first research question (RQ1). The 132 who reported never having used any of the strategies did not differ significantly (p > .05) from the 2,557 who reported an occasion in terms of age, sexual orientation (heterosexual vs. not), race/ethnicity (White/Caucasian vs. non-White/Caucasian), education (high school vs. more than high school), or relationship status (single vs. other status).

The complete list of strategies and frequencies of endorsement are reported in Table 2. All of the strategies were reported by at least some men; 36 men (1.3%) reported using all of the strategies at least once. The average reported number ever used was 8.94 (SD = 7.98). The most common strategy was telling a woman whatever she wanted to hear and this was used by the majority (78.1%) of the 2,557 men reporting any history of forced or coerced sex. The following strategies were reported by order of frequency: asked her repeatedly to have sex (48.6%); had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want (46.6%), had a female friend make the woman feel safe and convince her (43.8%), told her you knew she wanted it (39.3%), focused on a stranger to have sex with (37.9%), had a female friend bring her to you (37.6%), and got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control (37.5%). These strategies primarily involve sexual coercion in the form of persistent verbal pressure, as well as peers to help manipulate the targeted woman.

Less common, but not uncommon, were the more overt forms of physical force: just overpowering her physically from the start (10.0%), using some form of physical restraint (9.4%), using some physical force to create some pain (9.3%), forcing her to enjoy it (9.2%), and using drugs, such as roofies (8.6%).

Age and total number of strategies reported were significantly correlated, r = .123, p < .001, indicating that older respondents reported more strategies used. Those who reported being White/Caucasian had higher mean scores of total strategies ever used compared to those who did not identify as White/Caucasian (M = 9.33; SD = 8.45 and M = 8.40; SD = 7.24, respectively), F(1, 2,554) = 8.492, p = .004. Those with higher education (i.e., greater than high school diploma) reported more strategies than did those with less education (M = 10.18; SD = 9.01, and M = 7.73, SD = 6.60), F(1, 255) = 61.618, p < .001. Single men reported fewer strategies than did men in relationships (at the time of the study; M = 8.13, SD = 7.22 and M = 9.59, SD = 8.45), F(1, 2,504) = 21.187, p < .001.

2) Strategy Effectiveness

Men rated the use of these strategies as being effective (“successful at getting the sex they wanted”) in forcing the woman into having sex on 64.6% of the occasions on which they used them (RQ2; see Table 2). Kept touching and kissing the woman despite her known unwillingness and lack of consent was rated as most effective in terms of getting sex, followed by telling her whatever she wanted to hear, using physical restraint (e.g., holding her down, tying her hands), and having a female friend bring her to him or help in someway. Getting her drunk or high (when she was not drunk or high) was also rated one of the most effective strategies.

With regard to RQ3, the men with a history of forcing a woman into sex tended to view themselves on the whole as being about as good (32.2%), probably better (26.3%), or definitely better (21.0%) than other men their age at getting what they wanted when it comes to sex. Those with higher self-ratings reported more success in forcing sex (r = .248, p < .001) and reported histories of using more strategies overall (r = .291, p < .001) compared to men with lower ratings of perceived effectiveness at getting the sex they want.

Our scale development work generated two viable measures—one was a 12-item measure of the most overtly forceful strategies and one of socially coercive strategies (4 items; see Supplemental Materials). The mean number of forceful strategies used across all men was 1.29 (SD = 2.65; range 0–12). Of particular importance, the modal number of forceful strategies used was zero, with 62.6% of the men reporting none. However, another 15.7% of the participants reported using one these forceful strategies; all others (21.7%) reported using at least two or more forceful strategies. Of the 37.4% of the sample who reported at least one especially forceful strategy, the mean was 3.45 (SD = 3.37). Rates of coercive strategies were higher with the mean amongst all men being 1.61 (SD = 1.47); 34.0% of the sample reported not using any of the four coercive strategies assessed. Of those who reported at least one, the mean was 2.44 (SD = 1.11) of the four strategies assessed using this subscale.

Ratings of how much better or worse each man perceived himself “at getting what you want when it comes to sex” relative to other men their age were significantly correlated with number of forceful strategies reported, r = .247, p < .001 and the use of coercive strategies, r = .231, p < .001, providing support for our hypothesis. That is, the higher men’s self-ratings of their ability to get what they want sexually from women, the more forceful and the more coercive strategies they tended to report.

3) Circumstances, Motivations, Intentions, and Perceived Outcomes

Our fourth research question focused on the social and psychological components of the interactions whereby men use force to make an unwilling woman have sex (RQ4). Men knew that the woman was unwilling and not consenting through her “making excuses” (41.9%), directly saying she was not interested or did not want to (24.1%), and physically moving away/trying to be out of reach (15.7%). Men also responded that, in some circumstances, women were too drunk or high to say or do much of anything (9.7%). They had met the woman on a dating app or website (10.0%), on another form of social media or online platform (9.6%), a private place (8.4%), indoor public space (2.8%), outdoor public space (2.1%), a social event (less than five people; 8.1%), social event with lots of people (some known; 28.1%), or social event with lots of people (all known; 30.9%). They met mostly in the early evening (40.1%), later in the evening (39.6%), and rarely in the morning (2.9%). Almost always there were peers or others around during the interaction (80.4%).

In reporting about the most recent or memorably vivid experience of efforts to force a woman to have sex, most men reported that finding the woman attractive (“hot”) was the primary reason they targeted her (78.4%), followed by having noticed her before (37.3%), feeling lonely and wanting intimacy or touch (33.7%), or being drunk or high (21.1%). Less common were the remaining reasons including that the woman was notably drunk or high (8.1%), the man was horny/aroused (8.1%), thinking it would be easy or fun (5.8%), or being angry at her (2.0%).

The men targeted these women most often because they were horny (38.2%) and simply because the opportunity was there (27.9%), being really determined to get what they wanted (19.2%), believing that women con men about their interest (17.9%), and liking “this type of challenge” (13.1%; see Supplemental Material). They indicated their efforts to force sex were typically unplanned (76.2%) or used “if the opportunity arose” (8.3%) versus a deliberate plan (15.5%).

4) Perceived Outcomes

When asked to explain whether “anything good” came out of this interaction, the most common positive outcome was coded as relationship-related (n = 654). This captured responses such as friendship (n = 221), friends with benefits (n = 70), long-term relationship (n = 35), short-term relationship (n = 41), and other forms of romantic connection. The next most common code was for sex-related responses (n = 546), including “sex” in general (n = 480) or specific types of sexual acts. The third most common code captured experiential responses (n = 206) including that the interaction was notably fun, a good time, interesting, or memorable (n = 100). Personal outcomes (n = 102), such as learning (n = 30), self-congratulations (n = 20), and “winning” (n = 13) were less common overall. Eight responses appeared to blame the woman in some way (e.g., “some women only want to have sex if they are drunk or high enough”). Another 377 did not elaborate on their “yes” response to the question about positive outcomes, 14 said “I got what I wanted so yes,” and 379 indicated no positive outcomes but did not elaborate.

Men’s responses when asked whether “anything bad” came out of the interaction were primarily “no” without elaboration (n = 1,903). The minority who elaborated indicated relationship impacts (such as hurt feelings, less trust, friend group broken, ghosting, lost friendship; n = 232), direct emotional impacts for themselves (guilt, shame, loss of self-esteem, regrets, embarrassment; n = 74), and bad sexual outcomes (horrible sex, shallow sex; n = 41). Just 7 indicated that a negative outcome was that the woman was traumatized, only 1 indicated that someone intervened to stop them, and just 3 (0.1%) of the 2,254 men reporting an incident cited having to face rape accusations or charges.

O’Sullivan, L. F., & Ronis, S. T. (2026). Isolate, Inebriate, Intimidate, Repeat: High Rates of Sexual Force Against Women Are Reported When Young Men Given Anonymous Surveys. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Well. I have nothing to add. The text leaves you speechless.

I think we need to create a infografics with all 36 strategies for easy spreading throw wide audience. Let me cite it too (ranged from the most popular ones to the rarest, as it was in original):

• Told her whatever she wanted to hear

• Asked her repeatedly to have sex

• Had a friend, partner, or group of friends help you get what you want

• Had a female friend around to make the woman feel safe and convince her

• Told her you knew she wanted it

• Focused on a stranger to have sex with (or someone who did not know you)

• Got her away from everyone to somewhere private and under your control

• Used your money, age, status to convince her

• Gradually pushed verbally or physically until you got what you wanted

• Stopped her friends from getting in the way or interfering

• Kept touching and kissing her

• Started undressing before she was ready

• Kept her drunk/high if she already was drunk/high

• Focused on a woman who you figured was unlikely to stop you

• Got her drunk/high when she was not drunk/high

• Demanded she stop conning you (faking a lack of interest in sex)

• Corner her in some way so she could only focus on you

• Started undressing her before she was ready

• Stopped her (or tried to) if she tried to leave

• Focused on a woman who you figured was unlikely to tell anyone if you kept going

• Showed her that she was making you angry

• Had her come to your house or apartment when she did not want to

• Questioned her sexuality (e.g., called her a lesbian or a cold bitch) hmmmmm what does it reminds me hmmmmm

• Yelled at her or gave her hell for leading you on (being a tease)

• Let her know she would regret it in some way

• Take advantage of her being asleep or sleepy

• Just overpowered her physically from the start

• Used physical restraint (such as holding her down, or tying her hands)

• Used some physical force to create some pain

• Forced her to enjoy it

• Used drugs to help (e.g., GHB or roofies)

• Let her know you would embarrass or shame her in some way if she did not

• Threatened to hurt yourself

• Threatened to hurt her

• Used something (even a weapon) to frighten her

Your boyfriend isnt a stupid dummy. He tries to rape you. And he knows what he does.

Filmmaker: here is a movie about men feeling entitled to a girlfriend

Study for those interested

The substance I was addicted to was heroin. While I was actively addicted, it absolutely came before everything else. My life shrank around it. I kept using despite very real, very obvious negative consequences. If you’re looking for something that fits the “compulsion + harm + loss of control” model, that was it.

But what’s always sat strangely with me is what happened when that context changed.

Once my abusive relationship ended and I was no longer in an environment where it was readily available, it was shockingly easy to stop. I’m not saying it was physically comfortable. My body was pretty pissed off for a while. But psychologically, it just didn’t have the same hold anymore. I wasn’t spending my days white-knuckling cravings or constantly thinking about it. It dropped out of my life in a way that, according to the 12-step model, is not really supposed to happen.

And that’s where my issue with that framework starts.

Because 12-step ideology tends to assume that if you have ever had that kind of relationship with one substance, it reveals something fundamental and permanent about you. That you now have a generalized “addictive nature” that will attach itself to other substances or behaviors if you’re not constantly managing it. That you are, in some essential way, always on the verge of transferring that pattern onto something else.

And that just hasn’t been true for me.

I was a near-daily cannabis user for years. When it started consistently making me feel physically uncomfortable instead of good, I stopped. No drawn-out battle, no existential crisis, just “this isn’t giving me what I liked about it anymore” and I moved on.

I drink occasionally, in social or celebratory contexts, and I genuinely find alcohol kind of boring outside of that. It doesn’t have much pull for me.

I tried gambling once, got annoyed at how tedious and overstimulating it felt, and left the casino in under an hour. I have not felt remotely compelled to revisit that experience.

I use the internet a lot, and I play a handful of video games, but I can also go on a camping trip with no signal and be completely fine, unless you want to try and find something pathological about nature photography, in which case you can blow it out your ass. If anything, I generally enjoy the change of pace. There’s no sense of panic or withdrawal or “I need to get back to my computer/consoles immediately.”

So when I hear the idea that addiction is this broad, transferable trait that will latch onto anything with quick reward or low friction, I just don’t see it reflected in my own life.

What does make sense, looking back, is context.

When I was using heroin, I was in an abusive relationship. My environment was unstable, stressful, and honestly pretty bleak. The substance didn’t just exist in a vacuum. It fit into a specific set of conditions where it functioned as relief, escape, and regulation.

When those conditions changed, the behavior changed with them.

That doesn’t mean there was no dependency. There obviously was. It doesn’t mean there were no consequences. There very much were. My grades suffered. I dropped out of college. I lost my apartment because staying out of withdrawal and numbing out from the abuse felt more important than paying rent.

But it does suggest that what we call “addiction” might not always be this permanent, identity-level trait that needs to be managed forever. Sometimes it looks a lot more like a relationship between a person, a substance, and a specific environment.

When that’s the case, then a framework that assumes universality - “if this happened once, it will always be waiting to happen again, with anything” - is going to miss a lot of variation.

I’m not saying 12-step programs can’t help people. Clearly they can, or they likely wouldn’t exist in the way they do. But I do think they’re often treated as the model of addiction rather than a model that fits some people and not others, and when your experience doesn’t match that model, many people who swear by them will assume that you are misunderstanding yourself, in denial, or “not taking it seriously enough.” This paternalistic attitude only serves to make me even more skeptical of the framework.

For me, what mattered wasn’t declaring myself permanently “addictive” or treating every pleasurable behavior as a potential threat.

What mattered was getting out of the environment where that pattern made sense in the first place.