As we all know, Redditors and all soyboys and feminists can not appeal to any objective standard for morality without contradicting themselves, so they try this utilitarian nonsense.
Well, even going along with their pleasure vs. pain = good vs. bad idea, how exactly do we measure this?
How do we know that a woman being raped is in any way worse than men being permavirgins?
Their response to this is always to make the laughable comparison between women being raped and men being raped, but the reality is that they're in no way similar.
Anuses are not designed to be penetrated, whereas vaginas are, and men are not designed to want to be penetrated, whereas women are.
A more accurate comparison would be a woman raping a man by forcing him to put his dick in her vagina, or forcefully sucking his dick, or something like that.
"I bet you wouldn't like it if a man raped you"...yeah, no shit. I'm not gay, retard.
I wouldn't mind so much, however, if an ugly woman forced her vagina over my dick. Big deal. I'd go, "that was gross," and move on. I can't say what I would experience in that situation would be worse than this woman never being able to have sex. Seriously. If I have to take a woman's vagina sliding over my dick for a while to prevent this ugly woman's suffering with being a femcel (let's pretend such thing exists), I think that's fair enough.
At most, maybe she should get a fine. Germaine Greer thinks rape should be decriminalized and result in a fine, and only any actual violence that accompanies it should be prosecuted. I think it's a reasonable idea when you consider the fact that rape clearly isn't nearly as bad for women as they pretend. To women, rape is just unwanted penis. They deal with that all the time anyway, even when they "consent." They aren't consenting according to feminists anyway, given that their enthusiasm is fake and they are feeling coercion from the threat of making the male angry at the little flower princesses.
Hell, most men don't even care that much if they get ass raped by a woman. I have a friend whose girlfriend stuck her finger up his ass while he was sleeping. He woke up and punched her in the face, and she ran out of the room crying. She claims this meant he "abused" her.
He doesn't give a shit. He shrugged it off.
Meanwhile, women, aka fragile little flower princesses, would say a boyfriend doing that to them makes them a RAPE VICTIM and they experienced the most brutal crime EVAR, and the man should be put in prison forever.
Women don't seem to understand how bad it is for men to not be allowed to have sex, so we have to make them understand that sex to us is like food. Tell them to imagine that they could survive without eating, but they would forever be hungry and forced to only simulate the act of eating, rather than actually being able to eat. Tell them men could eat whenever they want, but women are not allowed to eat unless they are born with Stacy facial bone structures.
Tell them if they eat food without being Stacy, they will be sent to prison and have their reputations ruined over it.
That's what incels face.
Well, even going along with their pleasure vs. pain = good vs. bad idea, how exactly do we measure this?
How do we know that a woman being raped is in any way worse than men being permavirgins?
Their response to this is always to make the laughable comparison between women being raped and men being raped, but the reality is that they're in no way similar.
Anuses are not designed to be penetrated, whereas vaginas are, and men are not designed to want to be penetrated, whereas women are.
A more accurate comparison would be a woman raping a man by forcing him to put his dick in her vagina, or forcefully sucking his dick, or something like that.
"I bet you wouldn't like it if a man raped you"...yeah, no shit. I'm not gay, retard.
I wouldn't mind so much, however, if an ugly woman forced her vagina over my dick. Big deal. I'd go, "that was gross," and move on. I can't say what I would experience in that situation would be worse than this woman never being able to have sex. Seriously. If I have to take a woman's vagina sliding over my dick for a while to prevent this ugly woman's suffering with being a femcel (let's pretend such thing exists), I think that's fair enough.
At most, maybe she should get a fine. Germaine Greer thinks rape should be decriminalized and result in a fine, and only any actual violence that accompanies it should be prosecuted. I think it's a reasonable idea when you consider the fact that rape clearly isn't nearly as bad for women as they pretend. To women, rape is just unwanted penis. They deal with that all the time anyway, even when they "consent." They aren't consenting according to feminists anyway, given that their enthusiasm is fake and they are feeling coercion from the threat of making the male angry at the little flower princesses.
Hell, most men don't even care that much if they get ass raped by a woman. I have a friend whose girlfriend stuck her finger up his ass while he was sleeping. He woke up and punched her in the face, and she ran out of the room crying. She claims this meant he "abused" her.
He doesn't give a shit. He shrugged it off.
Meanwhile, women, aka fragile little flower princesses, would say a boyfriend doing that to them makes them a RAPE VICTIM and they experienced the most brutal crime EVAR, and the man should be put in prison forever.
Women don't seem to understand how bad it is for men to not be allowed to have sex, so we have to make them understand that sex to us is like food. Tell them to imagine that they could survive without eating, but they would forever be hungry and forced to only simulate the act of eating, rather than actually being able to eat. Tell them men could eat whenever they want, but women are not allowed to eat unless they are born with Stacy facial bone structures.
Tell them if they eat food without being Stacy, they will be sent to prison and have their reputations ruined over it.
That's what incels face.
