If you're flirting with a girl and stop and ask "do I have your consent to have sex with you", there's fewer things that women would find less attractive.
If a man is physically attractive enough what he says doesn't matter and her hamster will spin it into a positive light. If a man isn't physically attractive nothing he says will be seen as a positive. "Creepy" in womanese that means unattractive. But since women are unable to accept responsibility for anything, including their own preferences, they couch it in language that blames the man.
Women obviously don't want to be raped
80% of women will ADMIT to having rape fantasies, which means 100% actually do. But the trick is they only want to be raped by chad, not you.
I also understand how the different sexes operate
No, you don't. You still appear to hold the bluepill notion that women have some kind of moral agency.
Rape has always hinged on whether the other party consented or not.
Eh, no it hasn't.
Historically, rape was simply sex with an unmarried woman. The concept of 'consent' had nothing to do with it: you nail her before marriage, you've committed a crime. Women could not commit rape because men couldn't be raped, consent or no.
It was a property crime, either way. It's also true that rape wasn't initially symmetric. Men were supposed to have been willing. At times, so were women. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter whether the incident were what we today call rape or consensual. Both parties would be held guilty (though not necessarily punished symmetrically)
Reddit r/rapefantasy is full of reports, if they are to be believed, of women inviting rape, that is putting themselves in a situation where the chance of rape is high but not actually consenting, and then enjoying it at least in retrospect. I guess what I would say is it probably wasn't rape, but that doesn't mean the guy knew that. IOW it may not have been rape, but it may have been sex with an actual rapist.
I'm not a Christian but I'm going through the Bible and trying to learn from it and I'll pay closer attention to that question.
My mom
Group tendencies don't preclude the existence of exceptional individuals. Your mother might be saintly but that doesn't apply to women in general.
My saying "women don't have moral agency" is a linguistic shortcut and somewhat troll-y and I will admit might not be the literal truth. But if it were true it does explain women's behavior in the overwhelming majority of situations.
From this understanding, came about the understanding that marital rape was not a thing, because women would marry men that were not physically attractive to them, but were financially attractive.
The social contract was such that she had to provide sex as part of the marriage. Now easier to deny, wait a bit, claim abuse, and steal a large chunk of finance. Rinse and repeat, because plastic features and public masturbation is desirable.
If a man is physically attractive enough what he says doesn't matter and her hamster will spin it into a positive light. If a man isn't physically attractive nothing he says will be seen as a positive.
This is true to a degree. Obviously there's an upper bound of attractiveness where you can do no wrong, and a lower limit of where you can do no right. Most men are somewhere in the range between those lines, and can engage in elaborate mating rituals or have other qualities like $$$ that lift them up a bit. That's why even butt ugly guys in a rock band can make women wet.
Naturally this preference and the exact attractiveness requirements varies per woman, and hypergamy has inflated the bar such in women's minds that more and more men now fall under the "creepy" line, while the upper line is 6-6-6.
women totally want to be jogging along a mountain path and have a good looking masculine man jump out and forcibly rape them
yes
some trail or some dark alley
you are buying into the feminist framework, I know its tough to break a lifetime of cultural conditioning
the vast majority of cases are a woman volunteered to be in the situation, but the result wasn't exactly what she wanted and now she gets to cry for victim points and money
see mike tyson, kobe, bill cosby, and I never thought I would say this but i'll even defend bill clinton
I assume they're not fantasizing about a man jumping out of the bushes and assaulting them sexually. If they are, that would surprise me.
???
No that is literally the kind of fantasies that many women have. Easy to verify from their erotic fiction, magazine articles, online discussion boards, and from simply roleplaying with them.
But ernsithe is right, that doesn't mean they actually want to be raped. Fantasy <> Real Life.
There are women who might fantasize about it. At the same time though, there's very very few women who realistically want to play or act out anything close to that fantasy. And even between those rare exceptions who do seek out to explore that kind of dangerous territory, there's still a pretty wide gradient for how they might try to experiment with those kinds of experiences.
I think some people end up assuming that because someone has a fantasy, that it must be something a person would almost "certainly" want to play out, just so long as there are "favorable" conditions. The reality is that such a way of thinking is rather two-dimensional, and fails to take into account the multi-faceted complexities that may be involved.
Or to put it another way, just because a woman fantasizes about a one night stand with George Clooney does not mean she's unaware of the potential risks and consequences, including the very real possibility that he may just be really terrible in bed. The kind of woman who wouldn't use her head, or wouldn't care, an emotionally immature kind of woman, is the kind of woman that acp_k2win is describing.
That said, just speaking in terms of of how men and women operate, feminists either knowingly or unknowingly have no idea how women are and what they like.
If there is anything Feminists understand less than men, it's women.
Mostly they don't understand why the women don't want to turn themselves into men - either psychologically or surgically - and hate women who wish to, well, remain women, because they keep undermining feminist idolatry.
I think they have such a Marxist narrative about sex going on, that they actually think the natural, emergent, behaviors of men and women really are just brainwashing by a cabal of men.
The funny thing is the men most likely to get burned by these rules are the ones who try to follow them. If you act like a sensitive nice guy women will get creeped out and report you for feeling uncomfortable, meanwhile Chad on the hockey team thinks "No" means "Try Harder" and never has a complaint.
In 2019 there were ~47,500 deaths by suicide in the USA. Men are 2-4 times more likely than women to successfully commit suicide, so let's drop that by a fourth to 35,625 deaths. There were ~61,000,000 married couples in the USA during this time.
This means, at the absolute most 0.06% of married men commit suicide each year. And this is with extremely favorable and certainly inaccurate interpretation of the numbers in your favor.
So an institution with a 99.94% chance of NOT causing you to commit suicide is a total failure and should be abandoned BECAUSE of the 0.06% chance it may lead you to commit suicide?
These would be even less useful than pre-nups. You can't sign away your ability to withdraw consent, thus consent can be withdrawn at any time regardless of a prior agreement.
No, that one's still fine because what it describes can still fall under coercion. As you point out though, there's still a big difference between "I'd like to say no, but don't feel like saying it for whatever reason" and "I'm too afraid to say no because there's a real possibility that I could be further hurt or killed if I do".
This came up in a thing I had to go to in college. The question was asked who sexually assaults who if both parties are intoxicated. The speaker said they sexually assaulted each other….. the follow up question was “so do the crimes off set? How would that be handled when charges are pressed?” They had no response.
odd, because I remember in college being told if both parties are drunk the male is still the perpetrator. Glad they are getting one step closer to realizing how much BS it is.
They hate you and they want you dead. They want your culture dead. They want all of Western civilization removed from "their" Earth.
One of the best ways to do this is corrupt your culture, turn women against men. Specifically, women against men. Women are emotional, easily manipulated, and easily convinced they should be resentful of men.
Yes, you've described women very accurately, but then you...went on a weird tangent referring to them as a different entity to the first paragraph that clearly describes them?
I think many are maybe mistaking this for the more ludicrous attempts at teaching and overemphasizing some silly ass tips for communicating consent that had cropped up a few years ago. And nonsensical claims trying to paint flirting as assault.
Most of what I'm reading here is a bit more akin to what I might've read from the 80's, 90's, etc. where the TLDR is simply "Don't just assume that x means the person is going to be open to sexual interaction. Use your head and use your best judgement." I guess the most annoying part is that most of everything listed isn't exactly enlightening news to anyone who's mentally competent enough to consent to sex in the first place. Pretty much a "No duh" situation.
"Get consent" is something of a lousy way to word that final line though. "Get" implies that consent has to be loudly and blatantly expressed between participants, or something along those lines. When in reality, (both verbal and non-verbal) communication in relation to romantic and sexual interaction, especially between lovers who've known eachother's quirks and behaviors for a long time, is often very subtle and nuanced.
If a man is physically attractive enough what he says doesn't matter and her hamster will spin it into a positive light. If a man isn't physically attractive nothing he says will be seen as a positive. "Creepy" in womanese that means unattractive. But since women are unable to accept responsibility for anything, including their own preferences, they couch it in language that blames the man.
80% of women will ADMIT to having rape fantasies, which means 100% actually do. But the trick is they only want to be raped by chad, not you.
No, you don't. You still appear to hold the bluepill notion that women have some kind of moral agency.
You stumbled on the truth. That the definition of "rape" is entirely subjective based on a woman's arbitrary declaration.
Always had been. Rape has always hinged on whether the other party consented or not.
They're just calling any unwanted attention, regardless of how sexual it is, rape because its an easy weapon to wield against men.
Eh, no it hasn't.
Historically, rape was simply sex with an unmarried woman. The concept of 'consent' had nothing to do with it: you nail her before marriage, you've committed a crime. Women could not commit rape because men couldn't be raped, consent or no.
Where did you get that information? That's called "adultery"
It was a property crime, either way. It's also true that rape wasn't initially symmetric. Men were supposed to have been willing. At times, so were women. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter whether the incident were what we today call rape or consensual. Both parties would be held guilty (though not necessarily punished symmetrically)
Reddit r/rapefantasy is full of reports, if they are to be believed, of women inviting rape, that is putting themselves in a situation where the chance of rape is high but not actually consenting, and then enjoying it at least in retrospect. I guess what I would say is it probably wasn't rape, but that doesn't mean the guy knew that. IOW it may not have been rape, but it may have been sex with an actual rapist.
I'm not a Christian but I'm going through the Bible and trying to learn from it and I'll pay closer attention to that question.
Group tendencies don't preclude the existence of exceptional individuals. Your mother might be saintly but that doesn't apply to women in general.
My saying "women don't have moral agency" is a linguistic shortcut and somewhat troll-y and I will admit might not be the literal truth. But if it were true it does explain women's behavior in the overwhelming majority of situations.
From this understanding, came about the understanding that marital rape was not a thing, because women would marry men that were not physically attractive to them, but were financially attractive.
The social contract was such that she had to provide sex as part of the marriage. Now easier to deny, wait a bit, claim abuse, and steal a large chunk of finance. Rinse and repeat, because plastic features and public masturbation is desirable.
🤮
This is true to a degree. Obviously there's an upper bound of attractiveness where you can do no wrong, and a lower limit of where you can do no right. Most men are somewhere in the range between those lines, and can engage in elaborate mating rituals or have other qualities like $$$ that lift them up a bit. That's why even butt ugly guys in a rock band can make women wet.
Naturally this preference and the exact attractiveness requirements varies per woman, and hypergamy has inflated the bar such in women's minds that more and more men now fall under the "creepy" line, while the upper line is 6-6-6.
yes
you are buying into the feminist framework, I know its tough to break a lifetime of cultural conditioning
the vast majority of cases are a woman volunteered to be in the situation, but the result wasn't exactly what she wanted and now she gets to cry for victim points and money
see mike tyson, kobe, bill cosby, and I never thought I would say this but i'll even defend bill clinton
???
No that is literally the kind of fantasies that many women have. Easy to verify from their erotic fiction, magazine articles, online discussion boards, and from simply roleplaying with them.
But ernsithe is right, that doesn't mean they actually want to be raped. Fantasy <> Real Life.
There are women who might fantasize about it. At the same time though, there's very very few women who realistically want to play or act out anything close to that fantasy. And even between those rare exceptions who do seek out to explore that kind of dangerous territory, there's still a pretty wide gradient for how they might try to experiment with those kinds of experiences.
I think some people end up assuming that because someone has a fantasy, that it must be something a person would almost "certainly" want to play out, just so long as there are "favorable" conditions. The reality is that such a way of thinking is rather two-dimensional, and fails to take into account the multi-faceted complexities that may be involved.
Or to put it another way, just because a woman fantasizes about a one night stand with George Clooney does not mean she's unaware of the potential risks and consequences, including the very real possibility that he may just be really terrible in bed. The kind of woman who wouldn't use her head, or wouldn't care, an emotionally immature kind of woman, is the kind of woman that acp_k2win is describing.
If there is anything Feminists understand less than men, it's women.
Mostly they don't understand why the women don't want to turn themselves into men - either psychologically or surgically - and hate women who wish to, well, remain women, because they keep undermining feminist idolatry.
I think they have such a Marxist narrative about sex going on, that they actually think the natural, emergent, behaviors of men and women really are just brainwashing by a cabal of men.
The funny thing is the men most likely to get burned by these rules are the ones who try to follow them. If you act like a sensitive nice guy women will get creeped out and report you for feeling uncomfortable, meanwhile Chad on the hockey team thinks "No" means "Try Harder" and never has a complaint.
Imagine still believing in marriages.
How many suicides of divorced men will it take for that experiment to be declared a failure?
In 2019 there were ~47,500 deaths by suicide in the USA. Men are 2-4 times more likely than women to successfully commit suicide, so let's drop that by a fourth to 35,625 deaths. There were ~61,000,000 married couples in the USA during this time.
This means, at the absolute most 0.06% of married men commit suicide each year. And this is with extremely favorable and certainly inaccurate interpretation of the numbers in your favor.
So an institution with a 99.94% chance of NOT causing you to commit suicide is a total failure and should be abandoned BECAUSE of the 0.06% chance it may lead you to commit suicide?
I think your numbers are well off.
For a start, they're skewed by 50+ year old boomers.
At least he brought numbers. You should try it sometime.
Marriage is a failure because some men who get divorced commit suicide? That makes no logical sense.
What are the statistics on suicide of single, never-married men vs married men? I guarantee you the married men kill themselves much less often.
If you regret having sex it is not rape
If he doesn’t call you back it is not rape
If he doesn’t text you back it is not rape
If he doesn’t buy you gifts it is not rape.
Good women don’t let their friends make false accusations
best to wait 40 years until they're nominated to the supreme court, kek
And then, just like pre-nups, they'll find a way to void it.
These would be even less useful than pre-nups. You can't sign away your ability to withdraw consent, thus consent can be withdrawn at any time regardless of a prior agreement.
What, noooo. Men should be mind-readers. If you don't know what "k" means, and why she's angry, it's your fault! /s
No, that one's still fine because what it describes can still fall under coercion. As you point out though, there's still a big difference between "I'd like to say no, but don't feel like saying it for whatever reason" and "I'm too afraid to say no because there's a real possibility that I could be further hurt or killed if I do".
The fact that there's a big difference and ambiguity is why it's not fine.
It's missing a line:
"Yes" is not consent.
They'd probably word it as "yes doesn't mean continued consent".
holy shit, my wife and i must have raped each other hundreds of times!
This came up in a thing I had to go to in college. The question was asked who sexually assaults who if both parties are intoxicated. The speaker said they sexually assaulted each other….. the follow up question was “so do the crimes off set? How would that be handled when charges are pressed?” They had no response.
odd, because I remember in college being told if both parties are drunk the male is still the perpetrator. Glad they are getting one step closer to realizing how much BS it is.
No means no.
Yes means yes except when it actually means no.
No I don't think I will
They hate you and they want you dead. They want your culture dead. They want all of Western civilization removed from "their" Earth.
One of the best ways to do this is corrupt your culture, turn women against men. Specifically, women against men. Women are emotional, easily manipulated, and easily convinced they should be resentful of men.
Yes, you've described women very accurately, but then you...went on a weird tangent referring to them as a different entity to the first paragraph that clearly describes them?
they should have put "if a person is underage it is not consent" in bold
*Fine print: Unless you're a card carrying member of Alphabet, then none of this applies.
There's a difference between underage and age of consent. That's the only line they're blatantly and entirely wrong on in fact.
This seems to be the usual campus rape hysteria.
Consent is the mechanism that leftists use to justify parents taking 5 year olds to bacha bazi parties, so it may need rethinking.
This bullshit is old already. Bluenosed feminist neo-Marxist authoritarianism. Going to university is like being in the Red Guard.
if the girl doesn't actively say no and try to stop you, and she's not incapacitated, it's consent.
I think many are maybe mistaking this for the more ludicrous attempts at teaching and overemphasizing some silly ass tips for communicating consent that had cropped up a few years ago. And nonsensical claims trying to paint flirting as assault.
Most of what I'm reading here is a bit more akin to what I might've read from the 80's, 90's, etc. where the TLDR is simply "Don't just assume that x means the person is going to be open to sexual interaction. Use your head and use your best judgement." I guess the most annoying part is that most of everything listed isn't exactly enlightening news to anyone who's mentally competent enough to consent to sex in the first place. Pretty much a "No duh" situation.
"Get consent" is something of a lousy way to word that final line though. "Get" implies that consent has to be loudly and blatantly expressed between participants, or something along those lines. When in reality, (both verbal and non-verbal) communication in relation to romantic and sexual interaction, especially between lovers who've known eachother's quirks and behaviors for a long time, is often very subtle and nuanced.
You can image what a shallow, bureaucratic, chore these people's sex lives are. No wonder they're perpetually angry.