Autistic argument. What's next, raping newborns because age is just a number? Prepubescent women are not sexual.
There's no set biological hallmarker for puberty anyways, there is still debate among scientists as to when 'puberty' begins anyways. Some say it's defined by adrenarche, which is when you have the first burst of androgens and other sex hormones, some say it's thelarche, some say it's menarche/spermarche, so there's no widely agreed consensus, so you should be more specific, but whatever the case, females can still sexually selectively choose and can act on their dual mating strategy even if they are not yet fertile, so excusing a case of what you percieve to be preliminary sexual acts or sexual impulses doesn't make sense because you are still letting even an ounce of expressed female sociosexuality without considering the consequences.
There's a genuine scientfic
study done among 6-9 year old females where they had the choice of choosing a sexualised doll, and a wholesome non-sexualised doll, and they were then asked which one best represents their self-image, but yet, most of them still chose the sexualised doll. Just because they are coy, weak, and relatively uninterested in sex doesn't make them 'vulnerable' or 'unaccusable'.
Female sexuality is completely unpredictable, and no bluepilled social constructs like childhood innocence, which was invented itself by an French Enlightenment Philosopher called Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who himself tried to pool money to purchase what you would probably call a 'non-sexual' female sex slave in Venice, was then somehow magically convinced himself of her eternal 'innocence', and then promoted the blank slate theory, part of which assumed that humans are born naturally good and are corrupted overtime.
What would you do as a father of a 10 year old raped by muslims"? Say "Oh well, she'd grow up to be a roastie anyway."?
So you'd watch your daughters and sisters get raped and do nothing about it. Not cucked at all, very masculine. Would you want a muzzie or nigger rapist to marry your daughter and then talk to him at family dinner about how based he is for raping her? Easier said than done.
If you value a girl's virginity and want to preserve her for her future husband, then it makes sense to view molestation or this pseudo 'rape' as evil and to want to protect her from seduction by men and by boys her own age and by men of other backgrounds. However, if you don't care about female virginity or purity or apply a double standard to it, then there is little reason to be against it at all.
If you weren't being hypocritical about it, you would be following what based Medieval frenchman in Dijon did to counteract sluttery. Maybe only then would your outcry against muh 'ethnic men forcing theirselves onto muh women' would be justified.
Also, most of these immigrants would be out of Europe if they were cut out of the welfare systems many European countries offer, which are the same welfare systems that protect and encourage female promiscuity. This old testament verse should serve as an example to what I mean.
This kind of pressurisation should automatically repel the vast majority of men who want to force themselves onto women, because they are not seeking any long term commitment to them, and this would also mean that chad would be forced to settle with the first woman he deflowers (shotgun weddings), since the most logical meaning of 'rape' would also apply then since sexual contact is done without the authorisation of the father, the foid freely sexually being allowed to choose a clear indication of free female sexual selection, and so in this case, a woman would be punished as well as the equivalent would be a man freely forcing himself onto a woman (unrestricted male sexual selection)
Oh really, I guess the UK rape gangs are just in my imagination. Or they're "not true muslims." Idgaf what the religion allegedly prohibits, I care about what's actually happening. Everybody sins unless they're hidden in a monastery.
If you do not have the ability to completely submit to Allah and follow all the pillars of Islam, you are not considered a mu'min, or in other words, a believer. It does make a difference because the most zealotic and fervent followers of any abrahamic religion would not be drug dealing or living in a land where their religious laws do not apply.
These gangs have no right to have the term 'rape' in them even in a contemporary sense because most of these sluts voluntarily choose to hang around dodgy looking ethnics who turn out to be drug dealers or dangerous criminals. They were asking for it. Just look at the testimony of this slut here.
View: https://youtu.be/Y7bpSu_dpys?si=1BpqX-30OhoWunA7&t=504
Here's another testimony by another foid who would rather voluntarily subject herself to immeasurable pain being beaten and burned rather than touching you. You are unnecessarily caring about sluts who don't give a shit about you and wouldn't want anything to do with you in an environment where their sexuality isn't restricted, and they don't have a male chaperone to guide them out everytime they leave the house, so don't waste your time on pointless sentimentality, buddyboyo.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfvh_habOLw&ab_channel=SkyNews
Also, caring about some "collective rights of men" is cucked.
Male bonding/co-operation and male investment in offspring are what made us the apex species of this planet. And they are things women seem naturally inclined to undermine, so it is not cucked at all to defend it at all, as we wouldn't have progressed this far in technology and we would have gone extinct before the chance of even becoming hunter-gatherers, since all the successful hunter gatherer groups
restricted female sexuality as it served economic importance by saving up resource use.
Foreign men have at least done good by forcing themselves onto women, the birth of Rome was caused by this. Women on the other hand, when they are equivalently allowed to act on their impulses, do nothing good, and at worst, destroy or negate all contributing aspects to any system.
en.wikipedia.org
Most men would literally throw you under the bus if it guaranteed access to a prime foid. Even on this forum people are bickering over access to mentally ill discord e-girls.
And the collective of men are facing their own demise as a result, they are oppressing themselves and are happy with it, so why should I? This is like saying that I should be okay with some cuck eating the used cum-stained panties of some roastie and giving her thousands of dollars for it, since a non-proactive 'I don't care' attitude is what led us to this state in the first place. Even a tiny act that enables female sociosexuality is a catastrophic loss of men.
Female promiscuity encourages the disintegration of male bonds, and this would have all otherwise not been possible if not for the accumulation of extra resources, otherwise, this level of unrestricted female promiscuity would make most pre-contemporary civilisations like Rome collapse straight away.
The dynamics of male bonding will be immediately disrupted by the presence of even one young woman, particularly in a gathering full of single males. Women are able to separate males from one another, weaken them politically, and prevent them from collectively defending themselves against female supremacist attacks because of the repression of all-male venues and the integration of women in the business and public life. In a similar vein, encouraging all-female environments is crucial to strengthening women even in fields where they currently have a dominating position, like higher education.
I don't care, but not saving 100 people with the push of a lever is a sure fire sign of a psychopath.
Before you call me a cuck, I'll have you know I support state sanctioned sex slavery to solve both inceldom and low birth rates.
You support sex slavery but consider women as 'people', the duality. It's not psychopathic to not save beings that are inclined to reproduce with genuine narcissists and psychopaths over you. The only reason caring is if they were women that were conditioned to be as economically and socially contributable as possible, which can only be possible if they are not educated and are pressurised to be in long term sexual arrangements where they cook and clean (women are a net tax burden and the average woman has a negative fiscal impact of $150,000 over her lifespan)
the difference is that muslims are a lot less cucked than the average Godless white person (force their women to cover up, disown fornicators, honor killings, etc). white women aren't remotely under the care of mayocels or cumskin normies and are just Chad and Tyrone's plaything. being protective over that which doesn't belong to you and that which isn't loyal to you is beyond cucked. feeling rage to the extent of experiencing torturous ideation over what happens to the very same white hoes that'd laugh at ur existence is inconceivable.
He doesn't realise that it's often females who are clearly up to no good like slutting themselves out (which is a limitless times way more damaging to a social or economic fabric than a rightful reaction to it) or hanging out with the wrong groups of men, that are more likely to be forced open. These ethnic men would be less likely to force themselves upon them if they were conditioned to restrict their sexuality, which is something no father in Europe does nowadays.
https://moscow.sci-hub.se/1094/c4a623549ef3cd30b3f47c84b61782b6/russell2001.pdf In a 2001 study of 285 college women at a Midwestern private university (mean age is 21), they found that virgin women were significantly less likely to be sexually victimized. Only 20.8% of virgin women are...
incels.is
