Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Experiment [Controversial] Should women that get pumped and dumped be legible to sue those that did that to them to stop chads from sleeping around as much?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 27204
  • Start date

Should women get compensation from men that pump and dump them?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe, as long as the damages that the man owes isn't an excessive amount (define cut-off if wanted)

  • A man promising commitment but not following through is fraud and should be a criminal offense


Results are only viewable after voting.
D

Deleted member 27204

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
28,255
One of the emerging messages in the debate about what constitutes rape has been whether a man that pumps and dumps a woman is engaging in rape by deception.
This is suggested on a femaledatingstrategy thread
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/lg49nj/rape_by_deception/


On one hand having these laws in place where a woman that is pumped and dumped and is used for sex allows women to be the victim and get money if chad doesn't spend enough time on her and commit to her in a relationship after having sex with her. On the other hand having such laws can discourage attractive men that have a lot of casual sex from doing that so that much. With less opportunities for those attractive men to sleep around without being on the hook to commit to a woman it is suggested by some here like imo @Wizard32 that women will more easily accept a relationship with their looksmatch.

But by making such laws discouraging chads from sleeping around it also removes the ability of men (since in order for laws to be aimed at chads they would have to be aimed at men overall) to change their mind about entering into a relationship with a woman after they previously hinted how they would and be potentially bound to commit to a relationship with a woman if they ever have sex with her. It also means that even if consent is given at the time, the woman can claim it was given under terms she now doesn't agree to and she can retroactively take back her consent
, making the man who slept with her but didn't commit to a relationship with her guilty and liable to being sued or jailed. This gives women more power and leverage in negotiating the terms of sex compared to men.

So it's not so clear-cut imo what people here believe is best. Should women that get pumped and dumped be given compensation from the men that pumped and dumped them to discourage casual sex and sleeping around? Or will doing this actually ensure more power is given to women to decide things and means that men are no longer able to have as much freedom of choice when it comes to changing their mind about committing to a woman?

Some traditional conservatives would no doubt be a fan of such policies where women could sue men that pumped and dumped them because it puts most of the blame on "irresponsible" men that sleep around and doesn't penalize women, while in a way allowing for monogamy to more strictly enforced through indirect means.

On the other hand these policies do not stop or discourage women from having casual sex, since they are mainly directed at men that engage in casual sex with women and women value being committed to more than many men do.

@PPEcel
@Gymcelled
@ReturnOfSaddam
@Boardwalkcel
@LittleBoy
@grondilu
@Mainländer
@mänline
@RREEEEEEEEE
@Made in Heaven
@SlayerSlayer
@Edmund_Kemper
@AAAAAAAAAAAcel
@Angry_runt
@Forum_User_2345
 
Last edited:
Sorry sweety, you aren't entitled to a man's true intentions.
 
The foid on FDS argues that faking a personality and sleeping with a foid makes it rape.

By that same logic any foid using make up is a rapist. Any foid lying about her personality, her lay count etc is also a rapist

So virtually all women are rapists according to fds logic. But that is of course if they aren't hypocrites, which we know they are
 
Sorry sweety, you aren't entitled to a man's true intentions.
I agree. While it may benefit Chads more for this not to happen, criminalizing not following through on promises to commit to a relationship after sex and being able to change your mind without penalty takes away a man's right to change his mind on whether he wants to commit to a woman or not after having sex with her.
 
Just another excuse for women to take advantage of men
 
Having sex with a woman who wears makeup is RAPE by deception.

Those FDS fat disgusting beasts can cry them to sleep, they will never get to fuck chad. tfu on them and their whole family, they're weak, cowardly fat women irl who couldn't do shit
 
No, because they will only use the law to sue rich non-chads who pump and dump them.
 
No, because they will only use the law to sue rich non-chads who pump and dump them.
Say hypothetically this affected nonchads and chads equally. Would you still be against women being able to seek financial compensation from or legal punishment for the man that pumped and dumped them?

Imo this is one of those issues where you have to decide whether it's worth it to have more protections and freedom in place for men even if it will mostly benefit chads.
 
Say hypothetically this affected nonchads and chads equally. Would you still be against women being able to seek financial compensation from or legal punishment for the man that pumped and dumped them?

Imo this is one of those issues where you have to decide whether it's worth it to have more protections and freedom in place for men even if it will mostly benefit chads.
If a foid can say any man raped her then men wouldn't be having sex at all, so it's better to at least be able to get sex once in a while without fearing getting sued.
 
Last edited:
no don't give them more privilege. they'll always choose chad
 
no don't give them more privilege. they'll always choose chad
Good pount. Women often trick men into doing things for them and making it seem like it will benefit men overall, like the sexual revolution and less slut shaming being advertised as leading to more sex for everyone. But really the goal is to get maximum benefit for women only.
 
Society already gives them free passes and holds them to less or no accountability. This gives them more power than has already been given to them. Married women can already charge their husbands with rape. More power given to women means more power taken away from men. And we already know how little power men have in society.

:feelsclown:
 
Last edited:
Chad won't get punished for this nearly as much as betabuxers TBH

they'll get punished for realizing they're cucked and cutting off her purse, not for stopping fucking her
 
The idea should be to give women less power, not more. Giving them more power is never gonna end up good long term
 
Hum... it's almost as if men and women, before having sex, should make some kind of agreement, possibly written down on paper like a contract, about how they're serious and sincere with this relationship and want to commit to a stable union or something...

:waitwhat:

not that I'm a tradcon or anything, but I love the irony of progressives re-discovering the reasons traditional structures where created
 
Last edited:
Hum... it's almost as if men and women, before having sex, should make some kind of official agreement, possibly written down on paper, about how they're serious and sincere about this relationship and want to commit to a stable union or something...

:waitwhat:

not that I'm a tradcon or anything, but I love the irony of progressives re-discovering the reasons traditional structures where created
And yet so many of these same people will mock written agreements for consent as prudish and talk about how the best parts of sex are that it can be spontaneous, unexpected and exciting :waitwhat:
 
When I knew it was time to end things with my ex-husband, a year after telling him I wasn't happy and him threatening suicide, I got him into therapy and stopped having sex with him even though I didn't actually pull the trigger for another month. Men just don't have the capacity for empathy like we do. It's taken a looooooong time for me to accept that

The whore's husband is depressed cos she's a bitch, so she starts fucking around a month before divorce-raping him.

Daily reminder that's what foids mean when they say they're the empathetic ones.
having these laws in place where a woman that is pumped and dumped and is used for sex allows women to be the victim and get money if chad doesn't spend enough time on her and commit to her in a relationship after having sex with her
You really think foids don't have enough free money thrown at them as it is ?
 
Last edited:
This is stupid. If the state chooses to punish "rape by deception", what they really are punishing is deception, not rape.

If a picks up a foid at a bar while claiming to be an investment banker though he's actually a janitor, does the state really need to get involved?

If a femoid wears colored contacts and says that she has naturally blue eyes instead of brown, does the state really need to get involved?

If a man has sex with a femoid whilst having feelings for a 2nd femoid, thereby concealing his true feelings, does the state really need to get involved?

This has to be the most asinine idea ever. It's great that Reddit isn't part of the policy process.
 
Anything that gives women the power to decide they were raped when they weren't is a terrible idea. The kind of utter bullshit that foid spews is the reason why now I just roll my eyes when a foid claims she was raped, because you can basically guarantee whatever actually took place was probably just a sexual decision she later regretted.

The other day I legit saw someone on reddit claiming a woman was raped by her husband, yes raped, because he touched her tit without asking. LMFAO. THAT is the modern definition of it, it's an absolutely joke.

Also side note notice how she says "I didn’t always know how to spot narcissists either". LMAO hmmm idk, maybe they're the cocky Chads you lust after? It's hilarious how the personality detectors always break when Chad's around.
 
Yes, if Chads suffer that will be a good thing, we are not going to have sex or relationships anyway
 
Give them nothing. Give everyone nothing - except pain and mental anguish.
 
@Honeypot then why did you vote for the fourth option?
 
@Honeypot then why did you vote for the fourth option?
I believe in the abolishment of the state and the organization of society through contracts (anarco-capitalism) so if a Chad offers commitment but withdraw without fulfilling his word whatever it may be then it should be made accountable.

Same as if you start working and hire health insurance but the company doesn't pay for a laboral accident.
 
One of the emerging messages in the debate about what constitutes rape has been whether a man that pumps and dumps a woman is engaging in rape by deception.
This is suggested on a femaledatingstrategy thread
View: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/lg49nj/rape_by_deception/


On one hand having these laws in place where a woman that is pumped and dumped and is used for sex allows women to be the victim and get money if chad doesn't spend enough time on her and commit to her in a relationship after having sex with her. On the other hand having such laws can discourage attractive men that have a lot of casual sex from doing that so that much. With less opportunities for those attractive men to sleep around without being on the hook to commit to a woman it is suggested by some here like imo @Wizard32 that women will more easily accept a relationship with their looksmatch.

But by making such laws discouraging chads from sleeping around it also removes the ability of men (since in order for laws to be aimed at chads they would have to be aimed at men overall) to change their mind about entering into a relationship with a woman after they previously hinted how they would and be potentially bound to commit to a relationship with a woman if they ever have sex with her. It also means that even if consent is given at the time, the woman can claim it was given under terms she now doesn't agree to and she can retroactively take back her consent
, making the man who slept with her but didn't commit to a relationship with her guilty and liable to being sued or jailed. This gives women more power and leverage in negotiating the terms of sex compared to men.

So it's not so clear-cut imo what people here believe is best. Should women that get pumped and dumped be given compensation from the men that pumped and dumped them to discourage casual sex and sleeping around? Or will doing this actually ensure more power is given to women to decide things and means that men are no longer able to have as much freedom of choice when it comes to changing their mind about committing to a woman?

Some traditional conservatives would no doubt be a fan of such policies where women could sue men that pumped and dumped them because it puts most of the blame on "irresponsible" men that sleep around and doesn't penalize women, while in a way allowing for monogamy to more strictly enforced through indirect means.

On the other hand these policies do not stop or discourage women from having casual sex, since they are mainly directed at men that engage in casual sex with women and women value being committed to more than many men do.

@PPEcel
@Gymcelled
@ReturnOfSaddam
@Boardwalkcel
@LittleBoy
@grondilu
@Mainländer
@mänline
@RREEEEEEEEE
@Made in Heaven
@SlayerSlayer
@Edmund_Kemper
@AAAAAAAAAAAcel
@Angry_runt
@Forum_User_2345

No Justice

this was the freedom they asked for and now they suffer the consequences from slayer Chads and larping Betabuxxers not following through with empty promises.

Just take their rights away and make them like cattle again.
 
giving women more power and autonomy is how we ended up in this mess to begin with
 
Rape is forcibly violating another person sexually. Someone abtaining your consent because he told you he was the tooth fairy is not rape.
 
The foid on FDS argues that faking a personality and sleeping with a foid makes it rape.

By that same logic any foid using make up is a rapist. Any foid lying about her personality, her lay count etc is also a rapist

So virtually all women are rapists according to fds logic. But that is of course if they aren't hypocrites, which we know they are
 
This should be avaliable for both genders
 
This could decrease the amount of sexual partners chads have
 
I do believe a commitment should be in place before intercourse. The bible states so as well. However in todays day we must acknowledge that foids would take advantage of this to its legal maximum destroying even more mens lives.
 
Let the personality detector do it's magic. No interference needed.
 
witchingsauce doesn't seem to distinguish active deception ("gonna marry you babe") from passive (just not mentioning your plans)
 
YES! I've been saying this for a while and 100% agree. Honestly just preventing chads from pumping and dumping and leading women on would solve inceldom, and ironically stacy's would totally support it.
witchingsauce doesn't seem to distinguish active deception ("gonna marry you babe") from passive (just not mentioning your plans)
Doesn't matter, it should be that if the woman felt he was leading her on then he's guilty. It'd totally stop chads.
 
No, bitch should've kept her legs closed.
 
No. Women have been sheltered from consequences their whole lives. Maybe it's time for them to actually learn a lesson, instead of bitching until they're rewarded for failing.
 
The last thing we need is creatures with the mental maturity of a five-year-old being able to throw around petty lawsuits.
 

Similar threads

Buried Alive 2.0
Replies
10
Views
577
Dr. Autismo
Dr. Autismo
ForeverGrey
Replies
47
Views
2K
stalin22
stalin22
Destroyed lonely
Replies
68
Views
2K
faded
faded
Logic55
Replies
5
Views
343
Slut_Annihilator298
Slut_Annihilator298

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top