Prostitution and gold digging.
Women will subject themselves to sex with men they find repulsive in exchange for money. They don't want to fuck these men, but they do it anyway because the ends justify the means. Without money, sex with them would only happen via "rape."
And not only that; women will subject themselves to this over and over again for the rest of their fucking lives in a gold digging situation.
Just look at Melania Trump. You think she wants to have sex with that thing? She prefers Donald "cheat" on her, because it means she might not have to spread her legs as often for him.
So a woman can be physically repulsed by a man, but bring herself to let him do the physical equivalent of raping her (fucking her when she doesn't want it)...over and over again, if necessary, and not make a big deal of it.
Now, think about it as a heterosexual man. Would you let a guy fuck you in the ass in exchange for a couple hundred bucks, prostitute style? How about letting a man fuck you in the ass every day for the rest of your life just because he's rich and you will live in comfort. Would you do that?
Of fucking course not. The very thought of that is utterly absurd.
Therefore, rape clearly can't be that bad of an experience for women. At least not anywhere near as bad as it is for a heterosexual man to be anally raped.
It would be more akin to a heterosexual man being "raped" by an ugly female...maybe she ties him up and stimulates blood flow to his penis, then sticks it in her and gets off.
That doesn't sound so bad to me. It's like, "ew, I'm gonna take a shower," and then you get over it. And as an incel, it would actually be flattering to me in a way. At least SOMEBODY desired me sexually.
But since our culture bends over backwards for women more than women bend over backwards for Chad, any little annoyance to women (even if men face worse) is treated as a crime against humanity.
And so this thing that is really quite trivial (usually...I guess STDs and pregnancy could be an issue, but women can just get an abortion, and even HIV is manageable now) is blown way out of proportion into something where women get to be drama queens and men take it completely seriously.
But as you have seen time and again, women act the same way they would supposedly be justified in acting when they were raped as they act when their husband refuses to drive them to the lake on the weekend because he has to get some work done on his truck. Women throw the temper tantrums of a 5-year-old over things that everyone would agree are laughably minor.
Why should we take their melodrama over an unwanted dick going in them without their consent so seriously?
Seriously, IT. If you're reading this, let's see you actually make a cogent counterargument. Explain to me how sex without the woman being physically/mentally aroused is so bad, but in the cases of gold digging and prostitution, women voluntarily subject themselves to it.
Explain to me why we should take female melodrama over how bad things that happen to them are seriously when they do shit like this:
Women will subject themselves to sex with men they find repulsive in exchange for money. They don't want to fuck these men, but they do it anyway because the ends justify the means. Without money, sex with them would only happen via "rape."
And not only that; women will subject themselves to this over and over again for the rest of their fucking lives in a gold digging situation.
Just look at Melania Trump. You think she wants to have sex with that thing? She prefers Donald "cheat" on her, because it means she might not have to spread her legs as often for him.
So a woman can be physically repulsed by a man, but bring herself to let him do the physical equivalent of raping her (fucking her when she doesn't want it)...over and over again, if necessary, and not make a big deal of it.
Now, think about it as a heterosexual man. Would you let a guy fuck you in the ass in exchange for a couple hundred bucks, prostitute style? How about letting a man fuck you in the ass every day for the rest of your life just because he's rich and you will live in comfort. Would you do that?
Of fucking course not. The very thought of that is utterly absurd.
Therefore, rape clearly can't be that bad of an experience for women. At least not anywhere near as bad as it is for a heterosexual man to be anally raped.
It would be more akin to a heterosexual man being "raped" by an ugly female...maybe she ties him up and stimulates blood flow to his penis, then sticks it in her and gets off.
That doesn't sound so bad to me. It's like, "ew, I'm gonna take a shower," and then you get over it. And as an incel, it would actually be flattering to me in a way. At least SOMEBODY desired me sexually.
But since our culture bends over backwards for women more than women bend over backwards for Chad, any little annoyance to women (even if men face worse) is treated as a crime against humanity.
And so this thing that is really quite trivial (usually...I guess STDs and pregnancy could be an issue, but women can just get an abortion, and even HIV is manageable now) is blown way out of proportion into something where women get to be drama queens and men take it completely seriously.
But as you have seen time and again, women act the same way they would supposedly be justified in acting when they were raped as they act when their husband refuses to drive them to the lake on the weekend because he has to get some work done on his truck. Women throw the temper tantrums of a 5-year-old over things that everyone would agree are laughably minor.
Why should we take their melodrama over an unwanted dick going in them without their consent so seriously?
Seriously, IT. If you're reading this, let's see you actually make a cogent counterargument. Explain to me how sex without the woman being physically/mentally aroused is so bad, but in the cases of gold digging and prostitution, women voluntarily subject themselves to it.
Explain to me why we should take female melodrama over how bad things that happen to them are seriously when they do shit like this:
