Toxic Femininity Women can not be trusted with consent. They are in by far the most danger with men they trust.

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

As IncelTears users have agreed to, the statistics show that most cases of violence - including sexual assault - towards women are perpetrated by men they trust.

But as women tell us all the time, it is terrifying when men who are complete strangers ask them out or approach them in any way, and we are vawy, vawy bad when we do that.

They consider this a form of coercion, even though statistically, men they know are far more dangerous.

How, then, can they ever consent to sex, given that coercion - even implied - is rape?

Well, they can't.

Women can't be trusted to determine which men they trust. They're little children and don't know any better. Take them at their word. They are constantly getting fooled by "charming" psychopaths who just happen to be Chad and Tyrone.

If women are in too much danger from men that are complete strangers to not shit their pants like whimpering little pansies, they are in way too much danger from men they trust.

Women tell us all the time how they are terrified of walking alone in the dark because they're afraid there are men lurking in the shadows ready to kidnap/rape/murder them.

If they're terrified of that, imagine how terrified they must be around men they actually know, since men they know are statistically far more likely to do those things to them!

Surely we can not say they have any ability to consent when alone with their intimate partner, because a disproportionately high percentage of rape happens around intimate partners!

Explain this, IncelTears lurkers. Explain "consent" to me. Explain how a man can be sure a woman he knows isn't having sex with him just because she's afraid.

What if I go to therapy, start drinking water and soy, and watch some movies with female protagonists, and get a blue-haired fat woman with a septum ring. Let's say I pretend that I need affirmative consent in order to do anything, and I ask her for sex.

How do I know if she is really consenting, or if she is just a terrified little flower princess because she's afraid I will turn into a viowent male if she turns me down? How do I know?

After all, she could be afraid to say "no" because she's just so shocked and freezes up. All reactions by wape victims are legitimate!

If she can be afraid to say "no," she can also be afraid to not say, "yes."

Statistically, it would actually be far more legitimate for her to be afraid this will happen, because statistically, it is the men women TRUST who commit most sexual assault and violence in general against them!

Just because she trusts you doesn't mean she isn't afraid of saying no or not saying yes, right?

 

[mirrors]

Women can't be trusted to determine which men they trust. They're little children and don't know any better.

 

[bonecel332]

Never trust foids

 

[INVERTER]

It's because they get bored or start to dislike their Chads in some way and use gray areas to present it as "rape". Either that or the Chad takes it too far and doesn't mind read properly.

Ironically, women see an unattractive man interacting with them in any way as being more "violent" as any "rape" from a chad.

Women don't actually care about their own "safety". In fact they find "safety" boring. They just use "safety" as an excuse to throw people under the bus that they don't like

 

[slavcel11]

ITards will be overjoyed to read this

 

[tulasdanslos]

What the fuck are you saying? Chads know the women they're having sex with are not doing it out of fear, because they know they are turned on. This is like, a tautology. If you are in control of a situation and you have a general grasp of what will come to happen, like, oh, I don't know, consensual sex, you definitionally can't be afraid because there is no mysterious, unsettling and unaccounted for element to the interaction.

I bet this sounded spectacular in your head but it didn't. It sounded just as retarded as the male feminist.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

What the fuck are you saying? Chads know the women they're having sex with are not doing it out of fear, because they know they are turned on. This is like, a tautology. If you are in control of a situation and you have a general grasp of what will come to happen, like, oh, I don't know, consensual sex, you definitionally can't be afraid because there is no mysterious, unsettling and unaccounted for element to the interaction.

I bet this sounded spectacular in your head but it didn't. It sounded just as retarded as the male feminist.

This is what women actually argue, dude.

Take it up with them.

They say they are terrified of being randomly raped by strangers, but statistically, most rape happens from the men they actually know and trust.

Therefore, logically, since women's fear is totally based on rationality, since women are never unreasonable, they must be REALLY afraid during situations they're with the men they actually trust, since that's when they're most often raped.

This makes consent impossible in their model, because you can never read a woman's mind and know she's not just not saying no, or saying yes, out of fear, which would be coercion and therefore non-consensual, according to feminists.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

Also, in case any lurking bluepillers want to argue the "enthusiastic" part of your "consent" model: The majority of women who have had sex admit to having faked orgasms before.

How does the man she trusts know that she's not just faking the orgasm because she doesn't want to make him insecure and therefore angry? Remember, we men are insecure about our penis sizes (for no reason!) and could get very angry and violent about it. How does a man know the woman isn't pretending to be enthusiastic because she's afraid of angering him and making him violent?

 

[tulasdanslos]

This is what women actually argue, dude.

Take it up with them.

They say they are terrified of being randomly raped by strangers, but statistically, most rape happens from the men they actually know and trust.

Therefore, logically, since women's fear is totally based on rationality, since women are never unreasonable, they must be REALLY afraid during situations they're with the men they actually trust, since that's when they're most often raped.

This makes consent impossible in their model, because you can never read a woman's mind and know she's not just not saying no, or saying yes, out of fear, which would be coercion and therefore non-consensual, according to feminists.

Oh my bad. I was not understanding that this is actually a feminist argument, and assumed you twisted their logic into something that wasn't intended. You did not.

I had to have the "core" of the thread explained, now nobody can find it insightful. I'm sowwy.

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

Also remember that feminists don't consider being turned on to be "consent."

There are women who report orgasming during rape.

Their words don't constitute consent. Their arousal doesn't constitute consent. Their actions don't constitute consent.

Women have no agency. No responsibility. No accountability.

They can not consent to sex.

This includes lesbian sex, since lesbian couples have the highest rate of intimate partner violence.

 

[retardedcripple]

They have no possible rebuttal to this, it's checkmate. As damage control they could fake laugh at your post or pretend to not understand it, but no doubt there will be no attempt to engage with the content of your writing.

 

[yeetbender_]

ITards will be overjoyed to read this.

True, though OP IS correct.

 

[yeetbender_]

Also remember that feminists don't consider being turned on to be "consent."

There are women who report orgasming during rape.

Their words don't constitute consent. Their arousal doesn't constitute consent. Their actions don't constitute consent.

Women have no agency. No responsibility. No accountability.

They can not consent to sex.

This includes lesbian sex, since lesbian couples have the highest rate of intimate partner violence.

They aren't capable of making the right choices when it comes down to it, so how about WE make their choices for them

 

[RobertGarnicasAPedo]

IncelTears has absolutely no counter-argument for the substance of this argument.

Nonbinary otherkin won't explain what's wrong with it because zir can't, of course.

EvenSpoonier, who is a Brony gamer shut-in, with the classic SJW straw man.

No, I am saying that women should not be allowed to have sex. I'm agreeing with you guys, but following your logic through to its conclusion. Women are not mature enough for sex because they are children.

Emu can not explain consent, otherwise they would do it.

Nonbinary otherkin can't define what "says yes" means. Did Michael Douglas's character rape Sharon Stone's character in Basic Instinct, because I don't recall anybody there ever actually saying the word, "yes," or anything equivalent.

Is it not rape if somebody says "yes" while being coerced?

Don't blame me. Blame feminists. Rebecca Watson says it's not acceptable for men to ask women out in an elevator. Another woman went viral for freaking out about a man walking up to her in a parking lot.

RodinNox is pretending not to understand what "we" means. "We," meaning everybody out there who is on social media, are being told by women that women consider it a threat when strange men approach them. We are also told that women are afraid of being attacked in the dark. If they're that afraid in the dark, then they must be even more afraid around men they actually know and trust, since they are statistically far more likely to be attacked by the men they know and trust. Right? We wouldn't want to accuse women of being irrational, now, would we?

If women are that afraid around men they know and trust, and it's completely reasonable, then it only follows that they can never consent, because a man can never know she's not in legitimate fear that if she says no, he will attack her violently.

The squirrel says that "saying yes" without coercion is consent, but as already discussed, women have said that their totally rational fears of being sexually assaulted/raped/violently attacked are a form of coercion, which is why it is NOT acceptable to approach them in elevators or any private place. They are being completely rational in fearing being attacked by strangers in the dark, which means they, being rational, must fear men they know and trust far more, since men they know and trust are far more likely to attack them. Therefore, they're obviously too fucking scared to consent to sex, which is the whole point of making coercion illegal.

Baboon is talking about taking away women's agency, but you guys tell us that women have no agency to begin with. Women are never to blame for anything. They're children. You say as much when you absolve them of all responsibility and make it clear that it is impossible for them to consent to sex.

Box of Kittens, I am stating the exact conclusion you stated in your first sentence. Where did you get the idea I was saying anything else? I also added that women shouldn't be able to consent to lesbian sex because lesbian couples have the highest rate of intimate partner violence. Women only fear things that are rational to fear, after all. If their fears of being attacked by strangers in the dark are legitimate and not irrational, then they must be VERY afraid of things that are statistically far more likely to lead to violence.

abcdef going the straw man route. What else is new? Where did I blame women? I'm saying women are not to blame, because they are clearly children, and they should not be allowed to consent to sex. They are terrified of strangers raping them and since they're completely rational in their fear of that, they clearly are even more terrified of the men they know and trust raping them. That constant fear means they're always being coerced. A man can never know if she really wants sex or is only going along with it out of fear.

Yes, shellz-bellz, you should. You should also avoid women, because lesbian couples have the highest rate of intimate partner violence.

Engel1844 accuses me of not knowing how statistics work when they don't know how statistics work. These statistics come from victimization surveys. As in, they ask women who the perpetrators were. It's women who say they know the violent attackers, not the police departments/courts.

Consent forms are not valid in this case, because they are made with implied coercion. It has the same problems as everything else women claim they consent to. How do we know they're not agreeing out of fear? All of women's fears or totally rational, hence since every fucking woman tells us how terrified they are of being attacked and raped in the dark by some random stranger, they must also be terrified of being attacked and raped by men they know and trust, since men they know and trust are far more likely to attack and rape them. Therefore, any decision they make could be made out of this constant fear they obviously have.

I believe somebody else mentioned the idea of a woman initiating sex with the man, but this still has the problem where she could change her mind and want to revoke consent, but be too afraid to let the man know she has changed her mind, hence she is now being coerced to not change her mind.

Don't you love women's logic and feminism?!

 

[INVERTER]

People who use the phrase "you should look inward" should unironically get the death penalty. So sick of meaningless vague phrases that mean nothing being thrown around.

IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY STRANGERS TALKING TO YOU HOW ABOUT YOU LOOK INWARD YOU IDIOT.

As if these idiots don't understand that there are thousands of vids online of women accusing men of committing the crime of talking to them to be "creepy" or "dangerous". And like you point out, the ones they approve of are the ones doing the crime supposedly so their filtering skills are useless