Male chastity matters in regard to sex a man doesn't want, like getting anally raped in prisons.
it tends to be less of an issue with women since we tend to consent to that
In theory a foid who's super ug could rape a guy w/ better options who turns her down by using a weapon (knife or gun) to compensate for physical weakness, or some kind of social pressure like threatening to get him fired or jailed. This could be an upsetting situation, especially if she emulates rape by a man by jamming a dildo into your anus or some shit.
I'll admit getting cock enveloped w/o consent prob slight less traumatic than getting poopered w/o consent.
Non-con BJ from a man sounds like it should be universlally more upsetting than non-con BJ from a woman, though if a woman is repulsive enough it could be indistinguishable from disgust one would feel from men. Think some 80yo foid w/ broken teeth, herpes sores, etc. (needs to be extreme)
There is a difference between spirit of words and spirit of INTENT.
https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/22_2/05_TXT.htm for example talks about shifting from "utmost resistance" to "reasonable resistance"
There is a different "spirit" (read: meaning) to adjectives like utmost vs reasonable.
Clarifying about words is how we get to understanding themes.
We should try to avoid thinking like foids where we just expect telepathic shit.
If I ask and you agree that you intended something more akin to "reasonable" than to "utmost" for example:
this is how we achieved understanding of your INTEND theme, as it differs from your earlier STATED theme.
*shrug* I think it gets over-reported but I'm not sure what degree. Even if I knew what % was meant by basically-never or "how violent is violent" I prob wouldn't take a stance agreeing or disagreeing.
It's like I don't know how much, just that I get a sense the epidemic-levels don't line up with the near-universal deference foids get.
Where it does happen, 99% of the time it's something which could've been avoided if foids were more receptive to gentlemen ugcels and less receptive to jerk chads.
I think a lot men take "it's about personality" to heart (bluepill) which means they think if they just act like entitled chads the foids will want it.
Chad rarely needs to back down (his assertive use of non-con shit is embraced) so when sub-chads use this approach the foids will report it as rape.
The sub-chads would not behave this way if foids did not set a precedent for it by the combination of these two factors:
1) letting chad get away with it
2) lying and saying chad gets away w/ it due to personality and not due to looks
Men who blur the non-con lines and become too assertive are basically holding female society for account on their double standard: if it's due to personality then adopting Chad's personality means they are entitled to Chad's rewards.
If foids don't want sub-Chads behaving this way then they need to make that clear by making Chad beg for sex and jump through hoops just as sub-Chads would, and ALWAYS punish doing things w/o asking for and receiving permission first.
SOME of them do this, but it seems like a minority, and unfortunately the non-hypocrite minority of women suffer from a sort of "rape culture" propoagated by the behaviors and preachings that the majority of deceptive foids engage in.
Some of rape culture is of course also due to men who would behave this way if majority of foids weren't lying hypocrites (it's not a purely one-sided problem) but I think this accounts for a minority of the rapey scenarios. The vast majority is a symptom of their avoidable bullshit if foids forced each other to improve behaviors/speech en-masse because I think most men care enough that they would adapt to that.
Instead the current preach/behave combo of majority foids leaves men either confused (bluepilled) or angry (blackpilled) and either way results in bad outcomes. Honesty and non-hypocrisy ("chad doesn't need to ask to put his dick in because he's handsome, not because he's assertive" essentially) would go a long way to reducing confusion and reducing anger and lead to less rape.
Basically by not needing explicit consent from chad, women are contributing to their own rape culture because they set an example that consent isn't that important. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. You have women preaching about graded permissions and then ignoring those standards when their pussy is wet over a muscular guy: their own people are shooting themselves in the foot.
I think some women recognize this and do try to self-police but the vast majority seem to ignore this problem and just shift cause externally: they will lecture guys about the need for consent maximize observed disobedience, while minimizing the self-sabotage to this social message given by foids who selectively enforce those purported expectations based on looks and wanting spontaneous fucks w/o consent talks.
I certainly fetishize and value virginity and understand stuff like pair bonding and masculization chimerism but seems going overboard to talk about it like a death.
If we put too much importance on going from 0>1 cocks then everything else pales in comparison and then you have foids think it must be nothing at all to go from 1>999 cocks.
We should try not to embellish too much: if we make it less "end of the world" the advantage is you might have more foids stay in a slight-degen tier rather than going full-degen the second they become impure.
This is especially important for the minority who lose virginity in legit rapes : I don't want them feeling worthless and losing restraint and hope. I don't want to devalue them at all TBH: I think there is some value in weighing chastity at least mostly by what people choose to do rather than what is done to them.
This doesn't divorce outcome of course because outcomes are rarely purely independent of choices surrounding them, even if this might be earlier choices moreso than later ones.
I wouldn't say as far as EAP as we aren't publicly telling preschoolers to jump on cock or anything. There's certainly resistance to that.
There are definitely aspects of society at least pushing this kinda thing ulteriorly though, like negresses who teach their preschool kids to twerk, have sex in front of them, etc.
Yeah, absolute denial is just as irrational as excess embellishment. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Getting raped even if you 100% didn't contribute to making it happen still fucks you up for example, defiles you.
I don't like throwing people out as worthless or blaming them for it, of course.
I guess in some sense you want to devalue people this happens to because it could serve as a deterrent for those who will let it happen and say they didn't engineer it?
In that way you remove incentive to do so willingly and deceive (as foids often do) as the outcome itself generates a consequence regardless as to how you paint the intentions.
Kinda circumstantial, I think a lot of guys value chastity more highly than they will publicly admit because there are now social penalties for praising chastity (ie you're a slut-shamer, need to get dox'd, etc)
I think a lot of foids know that so they'll react to men's unspoken value of chastity by at least trying to appear that way even if deep down they are not.
The larger battle might actually be to get people to inherently value chastity for it's own sake rather than just it's appearance.
Women I think used to self-police in this sense, but if we want to promote this, I think it will take more than just "I prefer to marry chaste women"
That only promotes the appearance of chastity: being legit chaste is then only appealing because you don't need to take effort at deception: it can be easier to appear chaste if you actually are, even if you don't inherently value the chastity.
To promote chastity for it's own sake would lead to an outcome like a foid being chaste even if everyone thinks she is a slut and she has no reasonable help of fixing her rep.
That's the ideal thing: she's chaste for it's own sake regardless of if it betters her reputation. You want that sort of motivation.
My question is: if we do not actually value male chastity for some kind of inherent value (as a virtue to be proud of with it's own rewards) then can we even be leaders in such an effort?
Places here we seem to often harp on people who have standards, for example, even though standards are part of chastity. By condemning "volceldom" and similar (to the point where 99% of "trucels" will LARP about being utterly standardless) we work against the idea of promoting male chastity as a virtue.
In that case promoting female chastity as a virtue only works with a traditionalist non-egalitarian philosophy and trying to get foids to accept that, which is difficult because many of us still have egalitarian expectations or beliefs.
I try to not 100% believe in any accounts no matter how much I feel compelled to trust someone.
I try to be more skeptical the more I inherently feel that compulsion: as I do with women.
I'm a born misandrist gynepheil who just inherently distrusts men and trusts women:
if my preaching soudns otherwise it's because my memes are overriding my genes because I'm compensating to try to try and be objective and fair.
Characters like that certainly have some kind of beauty but I don't live by those standards so I won't expect foids to.
Or at least I probably derive a sense of honor in a different way than a traditional samurai/maiden so can't so easily enter into seppuku-tier standards.
Honor is basically reputation and we have no rep to begin with. Samurai / Maidens are high-rep upper-tier nobility who have not lived with the revulsion we experience.
If they want to an-hero because they can't take the loss of rep, that's on them, but I've already learned to cope with it. If lacking rep were suicide-worthy I would've already roped.
By virtue of being incels on this forum we're all non-samurai because we haven't roped at society's revulsion. A samurai could not have tolerated being us because we are inherently considered dishonorable to society.
We can't "lose face" because we never had "face" to begin with, figuratively OR literally.
Virginity is sexual value for women, just like having a pretty face or being able to cook or other stuff that makes her a good partner/wife/mother.
I don't see why this one aspect of value should be so all-or-nothing as to make life worth losing to avoid it.
I think some of us might be able to cope better w/ a 10/10 girl who's fucked one dick than a 1/10 girl who's fucked 0, for example.
You can say otherwise but realistically, I dunno man. Let's not put ourselves on pedestols, we're less superficial than most foids (or most guys) but there's still SOME superficilaity and shallowness in us.
Let's not be like foids and fool ourselves into thinking we're purely about personality and would fuck a 2/10 personality 1/10 looks foid over a 1/10 personality 10/10 looks foid: we probably wouldn't.
Based on that, I wouldn't expect foids to an hero to avoid getting her face cut up: it's fine with me if she wants to heal up and continue living with a scarred/burned face. Why the fuck shoudl I be approaching she die just because she might be less attractive to me?
This kind of dehumanizing thing is what foids do to us: we're unattractive to them so we should just fucking die. It's compelling to want to "punch back" and apply that same standard to them, I guess?
It's good you have the freedom to say what you're saying, and it's good for guys to occasionally say it, just so they know what it's like to hear/read it, because the outrage/sadness they will respond with could give them some idea of how WE feel when they do the equivalent.
After that's worn off though, rather than stand by it openly (as opposed to how foids refuse to be accountable for these behaviors / implications) I'm fine with then saying that no, I don't actually have such brutal expectations for foids: but hey in return: maybe don't wish for us to die just for being ugly? Value us just a tad regardless of sex appeal and in return we can value women just a tad regardless of sex appeal too.
Where did we ever hold such values though? In a lot of them they'd just compel the rapist to marry the virgin or some shit.
Are you implying this situation that the woman who is threatened with rape is a non-virgin or something? Or that she is a whore?
I'm again unsure what threshold is being set for whore-establishment, I really hope it's not that any non-virgin is a whore because I definitely don't agree with such an extreme leap, there's got to be middle ground between virgins and whores.
Especially since to me, whoredom is about intent not outcome: virgin girls can be whores if they're trying but incapable of losing their virginity under the most degen circumstances, while girls who have taken 1000 cocks could in theory be non-whores if they are sex slaves.
I don't like the idea of death penalty for rape because we should always take into account false accusations, that's why death penalties in general should be avoided if we have the resources available for indefinite incarceration. In cases where it's used the standards for conviction should be crazy higher than whatever standards are set for incarceration.
The problem with rape in particular is you have a thing people permit and sometimes don't permit, whereas you generally don't permit murder so you just need to prove killing happened. That's part of the issue with legalized suicide too as it introduces that new complication of proving consent/intent
