D
Deleted member 27204
Self-banned
-
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2020
- Posts
- 28,224
One of the emerging messages in the debate about what constitutes rape has been whether a man that pumps and dumps a woman is engaging in rape by deception.
This is suggested on a femaledatingstrategy thread
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/lg49nj/rape_by_deception/
On one hand having these laws in place where a woman that is pumped and dumped and is used for sex allows women to be the victim and get money if chad doesn't spend enough time on her and commit to her in a relationship after having sex with her. On the other hand having such laws can discourage attractive men that have a lot of casual sex from doing that so that much. With less opportunities for those attractive men to sleep around without being on the hook to commit to a woman it is suggested by some here like imo @Wizard32 that women will more easily accept a relationship with their looksmatch.
But by making such laws discouraging chads from sleeping around it also removes the ability of men (since in order for laws to be aimed at chads they would have to be aimed at men overall) to change their mind about entering into a relationship with a woman after they previously hinted how they would and be potentially bound to commit to a relationship with a woman if they ever have sex with her. It also means that even if consent is given at the time, the woman can claim it was given under terms she now doesn't agree to and she can retroactively take back her consent, making the man who slept with her but didn't commit to a relationship with her guilty and liable to being sued or jailed. This gives women more power and leverage in negotiating the terms of sex compared to men.
So it's not so clear-cut imo what people here believe is best. Should women that get pumped and dumped be given compensation from the men that pumped and dumped them to discourage casual sex and sleeping around? Or will doing this actually ensure more power is given to women to decide things and means that men are no longer able to have as much freedom of choice when it comes to changing their mind about committing to a woman?
Some traditional conservatives would no doubt be a fan of such policies where women could sue men that pumped and dumped them because it puts most of the blame on "irresponsible" men that sleep around and doesn't penalize women, while in a way allowing for monogamy to more strictly enforced through indirect means.
On the other hand these policies do not stop or discourage women from having casual sex, since they are mainly directed at men that engage in casual sex with women and women value being committed to more than many men do.
@PPEcel
@Gymcelled
@ReturnOfSaddam
@Boardwalkcel
@LittleBoy
@grondilu
@Mainländer
@mänline
@RREEEEEEEEE
@Made in Heaven
@SlayerSlayer
@Edmund_Kemper
@AAAAAAAAAAAcel
@Angry_runt
@Forum_User_2345
This is suggested on a femaledatingstrategy thread
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/lg49nj/rape_by_deception/
On one hand having these laws in place where a woman that is pumped and dumped and is used for sex allows women to be the victim and get money if chad doesn't spend enough time on her and commit to her in a relationship after having sex with her. On the other hand having such laws can discourage attractive men that have a lot of casual sex from doing that so that much. With less opportunities for those attractive men to sleep around without being on the hook to commit to a woman it is suggested by some here like imo @Wizard32 that women will more easily accept a relationship with their looksmatch.
But by making such laws discouraging chads from sleeping around it also removes the ability of men (since in order for laws to be aimed at chads they would have to be aimed at men overall) to change their mind about entering into a relationship with a woman after they previously hinted how they would and be potentially bound to commit to a relationship with a woman if they ever have sex with her. It also means that even if consent is given at the time, the woman can claim it was given under terms she now doesn't agree to and she can retroactively take back her consent, making the man who slept with her but didn't commit to a relationship with her guilty and liable to being sued or jailed. This gives women more power and leverage in negotiating the terms of sex compared to men.
So it's not so clear-cut imo what people here believe is best. Should women that get pumped and dumped be given compensation from the men that pumped and dumped them to discourage casual sex and sleeping around? Or will doing this actually ensure more power is given to women to decide things and means that men are no longer able to have as much freedom of choice when it comes to changing their mind about committing to a woman?
Some traditional conservatives would no doubt be a fan of such policies where women could sue men that pumped and dumped them because it puts most of the blame on "irresponsible" men that sleep around and doesn't penalize women, while in a way allowing for monogamy to more strictly enforced through indirect means.
On the other hand these policies do not stop or discourage women from having casual sex, since they are mainly directed at men that engage in casual sex with women and women value being committed to more than many men do.
@PPEcel
@Gymcelled
@ReturnOfSaddam
@Boardwalkcel
@LittleBoy
@grondilu
@Mainländer
@mänline
@RREEEEEEEEE
@Made in Heaven
@SlayerSlayer
@Edmund_Kemper
@AAAAAAAAAAAcel
@Angry_runt
@Forum_User_2345
Last edited: