HeOweGoreWrath
Paragon
★★★★★
- Joined
- May 20, 2018
- Posts
- 19,726
I was reading this 2017 thread https://incels.is/threads/stacey-is-literally-addicted-to-chads-cum-furthering-his-monopoly.6039/
A lot to skim through, but the crux seems to be that if you are a foid's first and imprint her with your cum and she has a good time that she'll come to look on you positively.
So: let's say you somehow interfaced with one pre-chad while still a virgin (or maybe she's not a virgin but she's somehow only had condom-sex so far and not unprotected sex) and even though she's not attracted to you (maybe you're paying her, maybe you're a kidnapper, dunno) you somehow pull out all the ropes and go down on her for two hours with aphrodesiacs, pulling out all the stops, she somehow begins to enjoy it despite herself and her disgust for you...
If at that point you nut inside her, you would chemically bind her happiness with her image of you, and next time she would be more receptive to it?
I'm wondering if that might be the reason rape is opposed at all costs (not just violent rape, but even gentle rape) because some know that a loving sex could actually bind women in love to ugly men (ie how it used to happen with arranged marriages) EVEN WITH RAPE... so the problem isn't necessarily that rape is always bad for a foid (it can be, if not done lovingly) but that when it's good for a foid it leads to happiness for ugly men and they don't want ugly men to be happy.
I wouldn't do this anyway (too high-inhib) and I wouldn't suggest anyone do it either. It probably only worked in old times when women avoided cum for longer periods. But I'm just wondering theory-wise if this is why it is opposed.
A lot to skim through, but the crux seems to be that if you are a foid's first and imprint her with your cum and she has a good time that she'll come to look on you positively.
So: let's say you somehow interfaced with one pre-chad while still a virgin (or maybe she's not a virgin but she's somehow only had condom-sex so far and not unprotected sex) and even though she's not attracted to you (maybe you're paying her, maybe you're a kidnapper, dunno) you somehow pull out all the ropes and go down on her for two hours with aphrodesiacs, pulling out all the stops, she somehow begins to enjoy it despite herself and her disgust for you...
If at that point you nut inside her, you would chemically bind her happiness with her image of you, and next time she would be more receptive to it?
I'm wondering if that might be the reason rape is opposed at all costs (not just violent rape, but even gentle rape) because some know that a loving sex could actually bind women in love to ugly men (ie how it used to happen with arranged marriages) EVEN WITH RAPE... so the problem isn't necessarily that rape is always bad for a foid (it can be, if not done lovingly) but that when it's good for a foid it leads to happiness for ugly men and they don't want ugly men to be happy.
I wouldn't do this anyway (too high-inhib) and I wouldn't suggest anyone do it either. It probably only worked in old times when women avoided cum for longer periods. But I'm just wondering theory-wise if this is why it is opposed.