Cope IT claims women don't like rape because of "arousal non concordance"

[berais]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTear/comments/st7si2/just_because_an_incel_was_hit_on_the_head_with_a/hx268hh/

Arousal Non-Concordance: What It Is & Why It Happens

Arousal non-concordance is the mismatch between what our brains identify as sex-related and what we actually find appealing. Learn more.

www.shortform.com

Supposedly even though women fantasize about rape and their bodies are wired to sexually respond to rape, and their sex drives spike because of rape, they still don't enjoy being raped. And let's not forget it's not like a women would ever get raped, enjoy it, and lie about it to gain sympathy.

@faded @DepravedAndDeprived thoughts?

 

[faded]

That IT cuck is full of shit. Foids lie like they breath and the only thing foids don’t enjoy about rape is that it’s usually a subhuman doing it to her, not Chad. When chad does it, it’s never rape . Anyway, who gives a shit what foids think anyway, they deserve to be raped and tortured for rejecting short and ugly men

 

[DepravedAndDeprived]

I remember reading somewhere that it's statistically more likely for a woman to orgasm when raped than to orgasm when having sex with her husband.

JFL imagine spending your life to try and fail to please a woman only for her to get a quivering orgasm when some 0 inhib Chad pulls her into the bushes.

 

[mlcurrycel]

any sex with ugly men is rape, being raped by chad is just dark romance. All the romance novels women read is about vampires and CEOs raping women, especially the cheaper books on kindle

 

[Robtical]

And let's not forget it's not like a women would ever get raped, enjoy it, and lie about it to gain sympathy.

Major cope.

 

[uo89997]

hey IT

 

[epillepsy]

Arousal non-concordance is the mismatch between what our brains identify as sex-related and what we actually find appealing.

This definition doesn't make any sense.
The brain is the seat of consciousness and there's no other "self" to disagree with the brain.
So "arousal non-concordance" posits another arbiter of judgment than the brain and the senses, as if you can taste something good and find it bad-tasting at the same time.

If you get a boner at the sight of men having sex, then you are gay and find men appealing.
If a foid is raped and has an orgasm, then she is sexually aroused by rape, i.e. finds it appealing, and her body wants to raped, just as a starving man wants to be fed food.

 

[Deleted member 41729]

This definition doesn't make any sense.
The brain is the seat of consciousness and there's no other "self" to disagree with the brain.
So "arousal non-concordance" posits another arbiter of judgment than the brain and the senses, as if you can taste something good and find it bad-tasting at the same time.

If you get a boner at the sight of men having sex, then you are gay and find men appealing.
If a foid is raped and has an orgasm, then she is sexually aroused by rape, i.e. finds it appealing, and her body wants to raped, just as a starving man wants to be fed food.

Rape is like being injected with heroin by someone else against your will.

You might not want to be injected with heroin by someone else, but if they do it, you will get pleasure from it. (If you're a woman)

 

[epillepsy]

Rape is like being injected with heroin by someone else against your will.

You might not want to be injected with heroin by someone else, but if they do it, you will get pleasure from it. (If you're a woman).

Yes, but women fantasize about being raped and masturbate to the thought.
They want to be taken by force, and it's a psychological/physical concordance that lubricates their vaginas in anticipation of rape, not a discordance as this study claims.

There's also physiological resistance to arousal if deep antipathy is present.
I wouldn't cum if a gay man rapes me in my asshole, even though my prostate is stimulated.
I don't get an erection when a male doctor examines my dick for herpes lesions, even though the tissue is being stimulated.

To be fair, there was a TV show where a "straight guy" said he wouldn't cum from a gay man sucking his dick.
Lo and behold, he did cum.
But you know he was a fag the whole time to even agree to a man sucking his dick.

 

[Deleted member 41729]

Yes, but women fantasize about being raped and masturbate to the thought.
They want to be taken by force, and it's a psychological/physical concordance that lubricates their vaginas in anticipation of rape, not a discordance as this study claims.

There's also physiological resistance to arousal if deep antipathy is present.
I wouldn't cum if a gay man rapes me in my asshole, even though my prostate is stimulated.
I don't get an erection when a male doctor examines my dick for herpes lesions, even though the tissue is being stimulated.

To be fair, there was a TV show where a "straight guy" said he wouldn't cum from a gay man sucking his dick.
Lo and behold, he did cum.
But you know he was a fag the whole time to even agree to a man sucking his dick.

There was a user last year who got a temp ban for saying something like "I would let a MtF tranny suck me off if it looked feminine." It seems he was implying if you use your imagination and tell yourself if it's a foid sucking you off you can mentally block the disgust from it being a man. Almost reminds me of how dudes who do G4P (Gay for Pay) porn pretend its a foid's butt.

Which makes me wonder, would letting a man or tranny suck you off be less gay than kissing a man? Since kissing a man requires you to put in effort. Both are obviously gay but is one less gay than the other, and what would be your psychological analysis on such?

 

[epillepsy]

There was a user last year who got a temp ban for saying something like "I would let a MtF tranny suck me off if it looked feminine." It seems he was implying if you use your imagination and tell yourself if it's a foid sucking you off you can mentally block the disgust from it being a man. Almost reminds me of how dudes who do G4P (Gay for Pay) porn pretend its a foid's butt.

We have to use our judgment and intuition to know clearly that this is gay shit, the reasoning for that can come later with further thought and analysis. The conclusion comes first here, which is that it's obviously gay.
Gayness is somewhat subjective, guided by our intuitions.

Which makes me wonder, would letting a man or tranny suck you off be less gay than kissing a man? Since kissing a man requires you to put in effort. Both are obviously gay but is one less gay than the other, and what would be your psychological analysis on such?

I'd say the blowjob is the more extreme sex act and is more gay.
Kissing requires no contact with genitalia and men have kissed each other platonically in the past.
A father kisses a son, certainly doesn't suck his son off (except a rabbi circumcizing his own son if that ever happens).

 

[Deleted member 41729]

I'd say the blowjob is the more extreme sex act and is more gay.
Kissing requires no contact with genitalia and men have kissed each other platonically in the past.
A father kisses a son, certainly doesn't suck his son off (except a rabbi circumcizing his own son if that ever happens).

Probably should have said making out. But still it doesn't require genitalia so oral is more gay tbh.

I'd say getting the blowjob is less gay than giving it, and those are both less gay than anything involving penis in butthole.

 

[epillepsy]

I'd say getting the blowjob is less gay than giving it,.

that's more about submissive/dominant and who is taking the traditionally male or female position in the sex act.
at the point where you are either receiving a blowjob from a man and getting aroused or giving head to a man, it already crossed the line into undeniable faggotry where delineations don't matter too much in terms of gay/not gay, or more/less gay, at least for determining if something is straight or gay.

 

[MARTYRDOM GOD X]

Foids love rape as long as its chad doing it. Only in those cases they dont call it rape anymore, just chad being "dominant"