Rapepill Daily reminder the difference (to the extent there is one) between rape and regular sex has to do with the female's state of mind, which is unknowable

Leucosticte

Hebephebophilic rapecel
Administrator
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
705
Likes
275
Points
78
#1
What's the difference between rape and sex that isn't rape? Just that in rape, the female is unwilling.

That's it. That's the only difference. Keep in mind the difference between assent and consent; assent is saying "yes" while consent simply has to do with a state of mind. You can consent without assenting, and you can assent without consenting; for example, children and insane people can give assent, and in some cases even "informed assent" even if legally, they can't consent . You can consent nonverbally. Consent is inferred by behavior, but some of the same behavior that chicks do when they're being raped, they can do when they're consenting; e.g. her opening her legs could be done either willingly or unwillingly. It's up to whoever is interpreting her behavior to determine whether she consented, assuming the conditions were in place for her to have the capacity to consent, by whatever standard that's determined (e.g. age, IQ, state of consciousness, blood alcohol level, or whatever).

Establishing consent is not really clear-cut. The legal standard of what behaviors indicate consent has been changed many times. E.g., it used to be, marriage constituted consent to sex. Then marital rape was banned, but in some states it was assumed that if the couple separated and she didn't file a rape report within a certain period (e.g. a month), then that meant that any sex they had prior to the separation must've been consensual. Then that was changed, because people said, "Well, maybe there are legitimate reasons why she would've waited so long before filing a rape report." It also used to be that if a woman was a slut, then it was assumed that she was more likely to have consented to sex outside of marriage, as opposed to having been raped.

If someone says, "I think we should rape chicks," all that means is, "I think we should disregard any cues that would indicate that maybe she's not consenting, and go ahead and have sex with her anyway." If the woman is saying, "Stop, no" and struggling, we don't actually know that there's a lack of consent. All we know is that she's not assenting. She could still, mentally, be willing to have sex, but pretending to not be, just like how the woman who feels afraid that she's going to be murdered if she doesn't cooperate could do the same stuff, like open her legs, that a woman could do if she's consenting under circumstances where she's not afraid.

The emphasis on female consent mostly matters because (1) society is trying to empower women to be more than objects of male desire, which requires that they have a certain degree of autonomy; (2) society wants to allow women to choose their mates for eugenic purposes or whatever, so that sexual selection can work to improve the race; and (3) the psychologists have told us that if women are raped, they're psychologically damaged.

Let's address the first concern, empowering women. Could it be possible that women could be, sexually, under subjection to men, but still pursue some ambitions? Let's suppose there's a female scientist, for example. Would it interfere with her work in the laboratory if she were to be forcibly raped and impregnated by her husband? Maybe; maybe she'd have to spend more time at home during her years of fertility, e.g. her teens and 20s. But maybe once she hit her 30s and 40s she wouldn't be getting pregnant as often, and she could spend more time in the laboratory. There are women who have balanced a home life and a career; the only difference would be that she'd be getting raped rather than having sex willingly. Men have to do a lot of stuff unwillingly, like pay taxes, for the alleged good of society; women's having kids could be considered a tax, her duty to society so to speak, even if it would perhaps not be what she wanted to do. In this way, she could pass on her genetics for intelligence.

What about eugenics? Well, we know that unrestrained female mate choice is not very eugenic. Chasing after Chads and scumbags, etc. and having sex randomly is just what they do when they're feral. Her dad could probably make a better decision for her. Heck, even having men engage in some sort of competition to determine who would get in her pants could be more eugenic; currently, the competition is to be the guy with the most exciting superficial qualities, and who has enough balls and initiative, to approach a chick, but those are just heuristics. There are many other useful qualities that, e.g., spergs could possess, that might be worth passing down to the next generation, that aren't tested by this method.

What about what the psychologists say, about how women are psychologically damaged by rape? Who knows about that. Isn't psychology largely a bunch of quackery? Aren't the studies that would contradict the results the researchers wanted to see often buried in a file drawer rather than published? Don't NGOs and government agencies push for research results that will identify problems in need of solutions, which they can then devote themselves to solving? If, e.g., marital rape were determined to not be a big issue, it would make it harder to get funding to try to tackle that issue.

We might think, "As men we would be damaged by rape." Yeah, but that's men. We're less likely to have rape fantasies. One might say, "Yeah, those are just fantasies, though; plus, not every woman has those." Okay. It still indicates a psychological or cultural difference between men and women, though; why are you discounting it and assuming it has no meaning?

At any rate, a lot of psychological and emotional pain happens because the individual feels alienated from or oppressed by society. Some people don't feel victimized until society tells them they were victimized. So what happens if society never tells them that? It's like the placebo effect -- if you're told a pill will have a certain effect, you could in fact experience that effect, because you're expecting it. If you're told that because you were raped, you'll feel depressed, you might feel depressed. So why not just stop telling people that, e.g., marital rape is bad; what would be the effect then of marital rape?

But keep in mind too, marital rape, like all rape, is a cultural construct. What if the woman were told that marital rape is a contradiction in terms; that there's no such thing? What effect would that have?
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
37
Likes
5
Points
8
#2
Why even ponder all this crap? Rape as a criminal act should be decided upon attacking the property of the father, husband or a pimp. Rape as an act? Who cares, really? Only the moronic cucks in modern Western society think rape should be punished because it violated the consent of the female. Sane societies don't revolve around any consent of the female.
 

Leucosticte

Hebephebophilic rapecel
Administrator
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
705
Likes
275
Points
78
#3
Why even ponder all this crap? Rape as a criminal act should be decided upon attacking the property of the father, husband or a pimp. Rape as an act? Who cares, really? Only the moronic cucks in modern Western society think rape should be punished because it violated the consent of the female. Sane societies don't revolve around any consent of the female.
This was originally going to be a post to Incels.net and therefore was intended for an audience that had not been rapepilled yet.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
37
Likes
5
Points
8
#4
This was originally going to be a post to Incels.net and therefore was intended for an audience that had not been rapepilled yet.
Yeah, but you're in any case going about it the completely wrong way. You're talking about female feelings, thoughts etc. These aren't relevant at all. At all.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)