I made a thread about this subject like one or two years ago. But I want to reiterate because of recent threads about “consent” from @SlayerSlayer
There is a common misconception relating to the subject of “consent”, that if:
Then what A is doing to B, is the equivalent of sexual assault or “rape”
This is not necessarily true, because:
If B wants to be sexually contacted by A, it's not necessary for B to openly give consent to A, before A would make sexual contact with B
Otherwise, in the event that A makes sexual contact with B, the intentions or desires of B would be insignificant as to deciding whether or not they were “raped” / sexually assaulted by A
Thus, if B intends or wishes to be sexually contacted by A, then it's not necessary for A to explicitly receive the consent of B before A can initiate sexual contact with B without “raping” B
For A to sexually contact B without receiving consent from B, such that it doesn’t amount to “rape” or sexual assault – This is most likely to happen in a BFGF relationship (where A and B are dating), or with a “sneaky link” (where A is the sneaky link and B is cheating on someone else)
If you assume B is a female (since the discourse on consent often concentrates on the female’s wishes or intentions rather than the male’s wishes or intentions), it may not always be the case that B wants to be sexually touched by A, where A is the “boyfriend” or “sneaky link” of B
However it would be sensible for one to suppose that if A is the “boyfriend” or “sneaky link” of B, then B will have a desire or intention to be sexually contacted by A at some point
So, there is a considerable likelihood that during A and B’s relationship or “situationship”, A will at some point be able to forcefully commence a sexual contact with B without receiving the consent of B, such that the actions of A will not amount to “rape”. This is because sexual contact from A would have already been wanted or intended by B, nullifying B’s need to unambiguously give consent to A
The real question is this:
If it's possible for a female to not be raped by a male that makes sexual contact with her by force, without explicitly giving her consent to him in advance (on the condition that she already wanted to have sexual contact with him), then why is “consent” purported as a major issue when it comes to intersexual relations?
Answer:
The female generally has enough awareness to recognize two things:
But as you already know, hypergamy exists, and women have historically tended to gravitate towards the higher echelons of the male population (in respect of SMV) for sex and reproduction. From these facts, it can be stated that if a female has a desire or intention to be sexually contacted by another male, it is more likely that this male is going to be above-average in terms of SMV (unless he is escortbuxing / prostitutionbuxing)
So, when the issue of “consent” is brought up by women, it shouldn't be difficult for you to recognize that women are primarily directing their concerns about “consent” and “rape” towards the male population with average or below-average SMV
I’ll word this in simpler terms that other users can understand:
Chad is less likely than a normie or sub5 male to require a woman’s unambiguous expression of consent to sex, in order to forcefully initiate a sexual contact with the woman without “raping” or sexually assaulting her
Though Chads usually are a minority, while normies are the majority. So it makes sense that normies will have a higher representation than Chads in rape accusations and rape convictions. But it doesn't change the fact that “consent” is an issue that’s more likely to be aimed at normies and sub5s males than Chads, as normies and sub5s are way more likely than Chads to be accused or / and convicted of rape
TLDR; The issue of “consent” is aimed primarily at normies and sub5s who might enter the proximity of another women in a private or public setting
The subject of “consent” is a lesser issue for Chads & Tyrones, than it is for normies and sub5 males
A woman doesn't always have to unambiguously consent to sex in order to avoid being “raped” or SA'd by another person who makes sexual contact with her by force, as long as she already wanted sexual contact with the other person who forcefully makes sexual contact
There is a common misconception relating to the subject of “consent”, that if:
A makes sexual contact with B by force, or
A sexually interacts with B without receiving the consent of B
Then what A is doing to B, is the equivalent of sexual assault or “rape”
This is not necessarily true, because:
If B wants to be sexually contacted by A, it's not necessary for B to openly give consent to A, before A would make sexual contact with B
Otherwise, in the event that A makes sexual contact with B, the intentions or desires of B would be insignificant as to deciding whether or not they were “raped” / sexually assaulted by A
Thus, if B intends or wishes to be sexually contacted by A, then it's not necessary for A to explicitly receive the consent of B before A can initiate sexual contact with B without “raping” B
For A to sexually contact B without receiving consent from B, such that it doesn’t amount to “rape” or sexual assault – This is most likely to happen in a BFGF relationship (where A and B are dating), or with a “sneaky link” (where A is the sneaky link and B is cheating on someone else)
If you assume B is a female (since the discourse on consent often concentrates on the female’s wishes or intentions rather than the male’s wishes or intentions), it may not always be the case that B wants to be sexually touched by A, where A is the “boyfriend” or “sneaky link” of B
However it would be sensible for one to suppose that if A is the “boyfriend” or “sneaky link” of B, then B will have a desire or intention to be sexually contacted by A at some point
So, there is a considerable likelihood that during A and B’s relationship or “situationship”, A will at some point be able to forcefully commence a sexual contact with B without receiving the consent of B, such that the actions of A will not amount to “rape”. This is because sexual contact from A would have already been wanted or intended by B, nullifying B’s need to unambiguously give consent to A
The real question is this:
If it's possible for a female to not be raped by a male that makes sexual contact with her by force, without explicitly giving her consent to him in advance (on the condition that she already wanted to have sexual contact with him), then why is “consent” purported as a major issue when it comes to intersexual relations?
Answer:
The female generally has enough awareness to recognize two things:
(1) They do not always want to be sexually contacted by another person
(2) There may be some people that she does not want to be sexually contacted by at all
But as you already know, hypergamy exists, and women have historically tended to gravitate towards the higher echelons of the male population (in respect of SMV) for sex and reproduction. From these facts, it can be stated that if a female has a desire or intention to be sexually contacted by another male, it is more likely that this male is going to be above-average in terms of SMV (unless he is escortbuxing / prostitutionbuxing)
So, when the issue of “consent” is brought up by women, it shouldn't be difficult for you to recognize that women are primarily directing their concerns about “consent” and “rape” towards the male population with average or below-average SMV
I’ll word this in simpler terms that other users can understand:
Chad is less likely than a normie or sub5 male to require a woman’s unambiguous expression of consent to sex, in order to forcefully initiate a sexual contact with the woman without “raping” or sexually assaulting her
Though Chads usually are a minority, while normies are the majority. So it makes sense that normies will have a higher representation than Chads in rape accusations and rape convictions. But it doesn't change the fact that “consent” is an issue that’s more likely to be aimed at normies and sub5s males than Chads, as normies and sub5s are way more likely than Chads to be accused or / and convicted of rape
TLDR; The issue of “consent” is aimed primarily at normies and sub5s who might enter the proximity of another women in a private or public setting
The subject of “consent” is a lesser issue for Chads & Tyrones, than it is for normies and sub5 males
A woman doesn't always have to unambiguously consent to sex in order to avoid being “raped” or SA'd by another person who makes sexual contact with her by force, as long as she already wanted sexual contact with the other person who forcefully makes sexual contact
Last edited:
