First let's clear up terms. There are two definitions of rape.
The old concept of rape is about taking the purity of someone else's wife or future wife. This is what made rape such a bad crime, because it breaches a fundamental social contract.
The new feminist definition of rape is about getting sex from a woman without her enthusiastic consent. This is based on the idea of bodily autonomy and includes violent rape as we think of it but also covers:
>having sex with a consenting woman under chemical influence (even if it's alcohol)
>having sex with your wife if she was coerced into the marriage due to "circumstances". Or basically any version of the oxymoron that is "marital rape"
>having sex with a sex worker because she probably wouldn't do it if not for the money. So it's taking advantage of financial circumstances
>Having sex with a women in emotional turmoil. Like going through a breakup.
>Having sex with a teenager because teenagers cannot consent (but teenage girls apparently can consent to fuck teenage Chads)
This definition of "rape" does not involve a social contract and is therefore no worse a crime than battery assault (in it's most violent iterations). And in many cases above, it is clearly a less bad crime than simple mugging.
My point is, since incels are men who cannot get any woman to have sex with them in a given social setting. Therefore according to the modern definition, any sex than an incel can get (including escortcelling or even betabuxxing) is rape. According to a feminists, if a woman has to have sex with an incel for money or support then it's a societal problem which must be fixed by giving women free money or easy high paying jobs.
My question is, why should men accept this definition of rape which turns any fulfillment of their basic biological need into a crime?
The old concept of rape is about taking the purity of someone else's wife or future wife. This is what made rape such a bad crime, because it breaches a fundamental social contract.
The new feminist definition of rape is about getting sex from a woman without her enthusiastic consent. This is based on the idea of bodily autonomy and includes violent rape as we think of it but also covers:
>having sex with a consenting woman under chemical influence (even if it's alcohol)
>having sex with your wife if she was coerced into the marriage due to "circumstances". Or basically any version of the oxymoron that is "marital rape"
>having sex with a sex worker because she probably wouldn't do it if not for the money. So it's taking advantage of financial circumstances
>Having sex with a women in emotional turmoil. Like going through a breakup.
>Having sex with a teenager because teenagers cannot consent (but teenage girls apparently can consent to fuck teenage Chads)
This definition of "rape" does not involve a social contract and is therefore no worse a crime than battery assault (in it's most violent iterations). And in many cases above, it is clearly a less bad crime than simple mugging.
My point is, since incels are men who cannot get any woman to have sex with them in a given social setting. Therefore according to the modern definition, any sex than an incel can get (including escortcelling or even betabuxxing) is rape. According to a feminists, if a woman has to have sex with an incel for money or support then it's a societal problem which must be fixed by giving women free money or easy high paying jobs.
My question is, why should men accept this definition of rape which turns any fulfillment of their basic biological need into a crime?
Last edited:
