I could throw in another “No, U” - but I am tired of descending to your intellectual level of discourse. So I guess in that sense, you win.
But the rest of us all lose. Telling those you interact with to fuck off all the time makes it hard to focus on, or even give much of a shit about, whatever the fuck point you are trying to make.
I guess it saves time: seeing the “fuck off” at the end of yet another post of yours makes it clear it cannot possibly be of any value, and saves us the effort of wading through whatever other tedious shit you decide to vomit up.
If you had told me a year ago that the stupidest excuse I would hear in 2019 would come from somebody other than Donald Trump, I wouldn’t have believed you. But here we are.
Not for me. Your argument comes off as needless nitpicking of the guy who is angry about rape and the attitudes around it. He’s ultimately right–those who believe in sexual entitlement ultimately support rape, whether that is intentional or not. Both are about removing consent–saying someone shoild be required to consent is effectively removing consent. And sex without full, enthusiatic consent is rape. (See my previous post for the full argument.)
He’s also right that sexual entitlement and approving of rape are common, because rape and incels are common. Common doesn’t mean majority.
I still disagree (although I appreciate being able to discuss the issue without being repeatedly sworn at). I feel that both ideas are wrong - but I see them as distinct.
Incels and other people who believe in sexual entitlement have the mistaken idea that women are obligated to have sex in certain situations. For example, if they go on a date with a man who spends money on the date or if they dress in a manner that a man finds revealing or if they engage in flirtation. This is wrong; a woman (or a man for that matter) has the right to behave any way they want without feeling obligated to agree to sex as a consequence.
But in the end, these sexual entitlement people still recognize some limited form of consent. They feel a woman still has the right to refuse to have sex. They just feel that the woman must exercise that right by not entering into situations which create the entitlement. Their belief system can be summed up as “She shouldn’t lead me on if she’s not going to follow through with it.”
Rape advocates like Daniel Shravan go far past this. They feel that a man has a right to have sex with any woman he wants without the woman having any say in the matter. They see women as having no agency at all. Their belief system can be summed up as “It doesn’t matter whether she leads me on or not. I’ll have sex whenever I want it.”
Both belief systems are bad. But I think it’s clear the latter is substantially worse.
You clearly haven’t heard what incels really think, then. There was lots of rape advocacy in their (now mercifully deleted) subreddits,/r/incels/and /r/braincels/.
They, themselves, see no difference between “entitled to sex” and “entitled to rape”.
Incels believe that women exercise their sexual choices unjustly and irrationally. They want to eliminate men’s ability to withhold their consent based on their own preferences. They believe that women that meet their personal preferences owe them sex. There’s little difference between that and belief in entitlement to rape.
Problem is that the step from one to the other is too easy in practice. If the valid refusal needs to happens *before *the “situation” arises, then what makes you have to listen for it *after *you’re in the situation.
The position Shravan expresses (and he’s just a current face to it) is especially offensive due to its assumption of the *inevitability *of rape, as some sort of incidental hazard like carpal tunnel syndrome or sunburn or chipping a tooth on an ice cube.
And oh, yeah: “it’s the voice of my character” COME ON!!!