If you're a stud, you just can't rape. Various hot models have raped women, for example, Ho Jang obviously has "raped" some women, none of these women came out against him because he's hot. I've read a lot about rape recently and throughout my life, it's always fascinated me, like how rape would be different from just normal sex and how women can just not like rape if they are biologically wired to like good penis so I read some biology books and some more complex books dealing with social dynamics and it seems like women actually enjoy rape, at least by people they're attracted to even if they don't want it. I am pretty much an expert at how rape works, and I've seen rape in every historical context, I've read 1000s of pages of literature on rape and it just isn't a real construct, not because actual rapes don't occur, but rather because women don't really care about actual rapes and don't report them, all rape allegations and convictions are fake. The University of Virginia complaints in 2018 in specific, proves my historical reading in which where the university of Virginia rejected all of the numerous rape and sexual assault accusations without taking any disciplinary action for a whole year because they of course weren't even real. Rolling Stone looked into them in an attempt to find problems and poster girls, but they found nothing and were utterly humiliated and deleted their article in support of these alleged "victims". (https://abcnews.com/2020/deepdive/h...ne-article-rape-on-campus-came-print-42701166).
From all this, I geniusly pinned the root of all this which is of course Davos elites and the managerial class. The Davos elites are creating these absurd social concpets to normalize homosexuality and deieify women. The way I came to this idea is by understanding psychological warfare. For another example if this isn't connecting in your head, the words “child molester” and “pederast” are obviously two of not the same. What makes child molestation an anticoncept is the combination or conflation of these two different phenomena into one and the very very wrong claim that they are the same. For pederasty, pederast tries to distinguish between different types of gays where the distinction is actually de minims but for the word child molester, it doesn't distinguish between gays and straights where the distinction is acually important. The Jewish family laws in OT was correct and modernism is obviously irrational and delusional. The figures are strangely consistent with my sanity, and difficult to reconcile with the sanity of the world, so either I am mad or the world is. I see things nobody else does, right under my nose. If you are using words for human things and human behavior for which the people of the Old Testament had no words, you are probably using words for things that do not really exist. Rape doesn't exist, raping women can't exist, just as a concept since it's antithetical to itself.
The terms “pedophile” and “child molester” normalize homosexuality and sanctify female wrongdoing by blaming males. If there are no similar terms in the OT or said by Jews of the past, it is because they are not really talking about objects. The fact that gays are attracted to young boys who have no interest in sex, much less sex with men, is a separate concept from a real thing that females are attracted to men with or without adult female development since boys before puberty don't want sex whilst women start to want sex as early as 8 in some cases so these are obviously different concepts we're dealing with.
“Fetish” is what makes acceptable the self-destructive and destructive behaviors of gay and transgender persons, and condemns natural male attraction to peak fertile-age women and the various different dynamics that men and women do when they want to have sex and mate. There are, of course, no "fetishes" in the Old Testament to condemn so it of course doesn't exist, a good rule is that, if Buddha, Jesus, Confucius or Aristotle haven't touched something or less accurately but more specfically religious Jewish intellectuals haven't touched it, it doesn't exist. I've read a lot of obscure relegeious text and none of them bring up rape because it's an anticoncept, it's just degeneration, there's no rape. Girls start craving sex very early, they can't be raped at 20 neither is it especially the same as the actual truth of homosexual men who are drawn to young boys who have no interest in sex at all, much less sex with men being disgusting and the worst of the worst crime. It's all about penalizing unappealing guys from having sex. If Brad Pitt "raped" the same girls Weinstein "raped", it would be called sex. A fat ugly Jewish man can't even have sex because having sex with ugly men is a disgusting social crime to pololoi. I speak of this authoritatively because I know what I'm talking about and have 1000s of pages of historical literature to back up my claims which very broadly is that with the feminine consensus, male needs are intrusions and not worth anyone's time, epically a sexually unappealing male's needs. And, since Jesus and Maimomandes agrees it's true, that's law for the most part.
From all this, I geniusly pinned the root of all this which is of course Davos elites and the managerial class. The Davos elites are creating these absurd social concpets to normalize homosexuality and deieify women. The way I came to this idea is by understanding psychological warfare. For another example if this isn't connecting in your head, the words “child molester” and “pederast” are obviously two of not the same. What makes child molestation an anticoncept is the combination or conflation of these two different phenomena into one and the very very wrong claim that they are the same. For pederasty, pederast tries to distinguish between different types of gays where the distinction is actually de minims but for the word child molester, it doesn't distinguish between gays and straights where the distinction is acually important. The Jewish family laws in OT was correct and modernism is obviously irrational and delusional. The figures are strangely consistent with my sanity, and difficult to reconcile with the sanity of the world, so either I am mad or the world is. I see things nobody else does, right under my nose. If you are using words for human things and human behavior for which the people of the Old Testament had no words, you are probably using words for things that do not really exist. Rape doesn't exist, raping women can't exist, just as a concept since it's antithetical to itself.
The terms “pedophile” and “child molester” normalize homosexuality and sanctify female wrongdoing by blaming males. If there are no similar terms in the OT or said by Jews of the past, it is because they are not really talking about objects. The fact that gays are attracted to young boys who have no interest in sex, much less sex with men, is a separate concept from a real thing that females are attracted to men with or without adult female development since boys before puberty don't want sex whilst women start to want sex as early as 8 in some cases so these are obviously different concepts we're dealing with.
“Fetish” is what makes acceptable the self-destructive and destructive behaviors of gay and transgender persons, and condemns natural male attraction to peak fertile-age women and the various different dynamics that men and women do when they want to have sex and mate. There are, of course, no "fetishes" in the Old Testament to condemn so it of course doesn't exist, a good rule is that, if Buddha, Jesus, Confucius or Aristotle haven't touched something or less accurately but more specfically religious Jewish intellectuals haven't touched it, it doesn't exist. I've read a lot of obscure relegeious text and none of them bring up rape because it's an anticoncept, it's just degeneration, there's no rape. Girls start craving sex very early, they can't be raped at 20 neither is it especially the same as the actual truth of homosexual men who are drawn to young boys who have no interest in sex at all, much less sex with men being disgusting and the worst of the worst crime. It's all about penalizing unappealing guys from having sex. If Brad Pitt "raped" the same girls Weinstein "raped", it would be called sex. A fat ugly Jewish man can't even have sex because having sex with ugly men is a disgusting social crime to pololoi. I speak of this authoritatively because I know what I'm talking about and have 1000s of pages of historical literature to back up my claims which very broadly is that with the feminine consensus, male needs are intrusions and not worth anyone's time, epically a sexually unappealing male's needs. And, since Jesus and Maimomandes agrees it's true, that's law for the most part.
