Legitimate question: Could you use intimidate to make a non-rape

>>51179449
No.

If you coerce someone into sex, it's considered rape by most modern folks, what are you asking?

You can intimidate someone to do anything they're able to, I feel like you may just be stirring shit.

>>51179449
Limited only to the "impress me with your strength or you're a bitch unworthy" types.

>>51179477
Interesting. Does this also cover using bluff to seduce someone?

Sure, even seen it happen before. Rather specific kind of use though.

>>51179477
Hey, nice to see a fellow tumblr-user posting on this site! I know you didn't say you cam from tumblr, but I can tell by the way you posted you must hang out there quite often. Just wanted to stop by and say "hi" to a fellow tumblrina :^)

Well, carry on. I look forward to seeing more of your posts around, 4chan can get kinda dark for me sometimes :3

>>51179837
They might just play exalted, dude.

>>51179863
Exalted players aren't THAT faggy, anon

>>51179890
...

Have you played exalted?

>>51179945
>op specifically mentions pf/dnd
why the fuck can't you stop talking about exalted?

File: 2387534dad134b37a0e02aa7716e5b358da544bbbcb5dc815de6f53c50b814cb.jpg (82KB, 625x468px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 625x468px

>>51179449
Yes, but you'd be limited in your options.

>>51179978
Because an anon accused someone else of being from tumblr, when they were acting like a fa/tg/uy who is just really into exalted, anon. Why so upset? Did Exalted seduce you with a successful intimidate check?

>>51180002
>Did Exalted seduce you
if you're trying to imply there is anything appealing about Exalted i'm afraid you're mistaken

>>51179837

What part of 'Unwilling sex is rape' is tumblr?

>>51179449
It's the implication..

>>51180032
coerced is a synonym of convinced. if someone has convinced you of something you are not an "unwilling believer" did you even fucking read what he wrote?
>implying you're not samefag

>>51180038
God damn it, I suddenly understand everything about my question

File: convince.png (36KB, 841x412px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 841x412px

>>51180055
>coerced is a synonym of convinced.
And the retard of the day award goes to....

>>51180055

>coerced
>persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

>obtain (something) from someone by using force or threats.

Unwilling is a pretty big part of it.

>>51180152
"it's not on this small list of synonyms i found on google, therefore there is no chance it could be a fact"
also why the fuck would you look up synonyms of convince rather than coerce? holy hell you are some special kind of moronic pal. but hey, I'm sure that won't stop you from shitposting, so jokes on me for responding

>>51180179
but they were persuaded to consent. are you fucking retarded or do you not know what persuaded means?

>>51180200
If i stick a knife up to a womans throat and then have sex with her saying i'll slit her throat if she refuses then that's rape.

>>51180200

So if you torture or blackmail someone into doing something they become willing?

As the example for the second one there was:

>"their confessions were allegedly coerced by torture"

>>51180189
>also why the fuck would you look up synonyms of convince rather than coerce?
Because you said that coerced is a synonym of convinced.
Is English not your first language, or are you just retarded?

>>51180200
>but they were persuaded to consent.
No, they were coerced into consent. These words are actually very different to the point that they have different legal ramifications.

>>51180055
Is English not your first language or something?

>>51180220
>>51180221
>>51180224
Hey guys, glad to see this thread has really attracted the tumblr crowd ^u^ Much like the world, 4chan can be a pretty scary place sometimes and having safe spaces like this thread make it much more welcoming to people like me (for reference, even r.eddit gets a little too edgy for me sometimes). If I post a link to my tumblr page, will you guys give me a few reblogs plz?

>>51180265

You might as well say it's attracted the legal crowd. Coercion has a very clear legal definition and it's not the same as convincing someone.

>>51180265
>if you disagree with me you must be tumblr
im not going to let you redefine words to suit your narrative you pathetic fucking faggot

>>51180265
Understanding how English is used in practice is a trait exclusive to tumblr users now?

>>51180296
"ill use some derogatory words, then hell believe i don't use my favorite website, tumblr!"

>>51180336
here's the last (You) I'm giving your bait, you can fuck off now

>>51180336
epic troll m8

>>51180344
Jokes on you; I just want the (You). Did you see how I orchestrated that? It was so perfect. I just memed the same meme everyone here memes, but I put it out there so gently you couldn't resist.
It's like asking a slut what her sign is. It's a horrible line, of course, but she can't help but to roll her eyes and answer anyway. And that's all you need. Once she responds you both know she will be yours. The door is open.
And in that same way, you are now mine. I have you and your (You) and there is no way for you to change that. You have been dominated, used, and soon will be discarded.
But you knew this would be the case when you responded. It's the silly game we play here. We pretend we're actually conversing but it's all really just a ridiculous dance. One partner leads, the other follows, and neither has truly gained nor lost anything.
We carry on, and we know we'll do it again and again. Probably not with the same partner, but that's ok. It's the thrill of the hunt that keeps us coming back. The thrill of hunting and, if we're being honest, the thrill of the vulnerability of being hunted.
Thanks for dancing with me, anon.

>>51179449

One option I feel is that it'd be good for seduction based upon people perceiving you as a badass.

So for instance, if you used intimidate while bending metal rods to show off your strength (though you would still need to actually bend said rods)...

Or boasting of badass deeds. "I am Thorkar the Destroyer, he who has slain three hundred men with a broken axe handle!"

Or perhaps as acting like an overly pushing dom type. "You, me, let's go upstairs."

The latter is probably the most borderline rapey of the options, but it should be alright if you leave the target with a legitimate out.

Hope this helps!

>>51180303
Anon, it isn't even a trait of tumblr users, which generally co-opt words for their own definitions/purposes on a fairly regular basis.

>>51180427
of course he's gonna defend tumblr, its where he spends most of his time. I'm sure he also has a tumblr tab open now complaining about this exact thread

>>51180265
Truly sickening

>if you think rape is wrong, you're from tumblr
/tg/ hits new lows every day

>>51180491
no one was arguing whether rape was right or wrong you ignorant cunt

>>51179449
No, OP. You and quite a few other people in this thread should read the skill again:

"Check: You can use Intimidate to force an opponent to act friendly toward you for 1d6 × 10 minutes with a successful check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If successful, the target gives you the information you desire, takes actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offers limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities. If you fail this check by 5 or more, the target attempts to deceive you or otherwise hinder your activities."

Note that target will act "Friendly" but not "Helpful" and thus you still are going to be subjected to Request DCs on top. So you could use the skill to intimidate the person into doing whatever thing you want to """seduce""" them into doing with your threats of violence or displays of prowess, but no matter how you attempt to justify it, after 1d6x10 minutes she's still going to report your ass to the police for the rapist you are because she's now unfriendly towards you. And you best not fail your check by five or you might end up with a bad case of severed dick.

>>51180507
I think they were.

Like most shitheads, they're arguing that their version of rape isn't actually rape, because if it was, they'd be rapists.

Loser shitheads that have to pester and pester a girl to get her to sleep with him, usually by way of covert threats are an actual issue.

Are there shithead women who decry everything as rape? Sure, and those fucks need to shut up. They're not making an issue out of nothing, they're masking a real fucking issue by overblowing it and minimizing it in the eyes of others.

It's te same fucking thing with "That Guy". When everyone tells their clearly overblown or false horror story about having social interaction with someone they didn't like, it means that actual fuckers who make the hobby look bad get off scot free, because people don't believe they exist.

>>51180386
Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt he's not a troll (which he is) intimidation means scarring someone doing something. So the answer is pretty much no.

I suppose you try to impress her with a 'bad boy act' or how well you scared off the other guy (would probably be more closer to performance) but even that would be pushing it.

>>51180739
hi plebbit, here's your (You) so you can tell all your normie friends that you're a bona fide 4channer, plz leave now

>>51180846
Only after you learn to type like a literate human being, instead of a disabled child.

>>51180885
>getting this anally annihilated over a post on an anonymous malaysian woodcarving site
who's the disabled child here?

Jeezus Chriist just look at the memebabby here.

>>51180925
your anger arouses me, anon-kun

File: 1475364522843.jpg (74KB, 480x800px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 480x800px

>>51180386
>>51180740
OP here, the 'overly pushy dom' act was kind of what I had in mind, but I was wondering what other people thought. I'm actually intrigued by the badboy aspect though, hadn't thought of it, even though either option is kind of skirting edgelord territory (though we're going pretty deep into magical realm already with making seduction rules).

I have a few players in an erp-heavy online game who are new to pathfinder, and one asked me how you seduce someone (she wanted to "slut her way out of the situation" in her words). I said "Justify any charisma-based skill to me, but fuck you if you say perform(percussion)", and she asked "even intimidate?", to which I had no legitimate response.

>>51180731
>implying anyone uses the social skills as-written

No. All cis-sex is rape inherently.

>>51180995
>OP here, the 'overly pushy dom' act was kind of what I had in mind

Okay well you should really make that a lot more fucking clear....because the implication.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

>>51180995
Well hey, it's up on her to justify her approach if she wants to try it.

What's your thought on "Intimidate to impress the amazon/badass types"?

>>51181031
where did op say it was cis-sex? faggot

>>51180368

>>51181042
I'd say it gets their attention, but you're looking at a significant penalty due to her expectations of virility, and maybe a size category penalty due to my fetishes involving amazons.

She ended up going with bluff anyways, as she's a duplicitous little shit of a sorcerer, but I figured I'd get some rules down for the only cha-based skill the fighter has.

>>51181031
You do realize that cis=comfortable in skin, and it can apply perfectly well to lesbians and gay men, right?

RIGHT?

>>51180386
Showing off feats of strength is called "performance" not "intimidate".

Boasting is called "bluff" not "intimidate."

Acting overly pushy is "performance" or "bluff" not "intimidate."

Actually
BEING overly pushy is called "intimidate" and isn't seductive at all, it's forcing someone to do what they don't want to do.

When applied to sex, its called "rape".

So, still no.

>>51180995
See above.

>>51179449
Yes. Just be a lady about it.

>>51179449
Yes if someone you intimidate really wants to have sex with you because how good in intimidation you are

You could plausibly do it accidentally. Someone attracted to power might be turned on by threats.

Pretty sure you could seduce Harley Quinn with Intimidate rolls.

File: image.jpg (225KB, 1784x896px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1784x896px

>>51180995
>>51181040
That's explicitly not how intimidation works but you're GM Man. If you want to use to mean simply 'talking tough' rather than actual threats then sure. whatever helps helps you get feel better jerking off over the Internet.

Who do you think we are? The boner police? You do you.

>>51179449
If she has a domination fetish, maybe.
Otherwise, no.

>>51179633
S
This really depends of what you're bluffing. People forget, it seems, that PCs are supposed to be people. They aren't trying to cover their munchkin builds weak spots with stronger ones. They just want to bang that woman.

Stop trying to use your good skill where it isn't intended to be used.

Also, if you use bluff to seduce, she'll know you're lying soon enough... Oglaf curses aside.

>>51181200
No god damn it, you don't understand! I can't get it up unless I know that somewhere out there, someone agrees with my rulings as a GM! My players don't count - they're so inexperienced it's like statutory.

>>51179449
depends on your DM's setting

>>51179449
Maybe, if it's along the lines of, "This is your only chance to become my lover, if you walk away now you will forever regret this opportunity, because in the back of your mind there will always be that thought of 'What did I miss out on?' You will spend the rest of your life wondering how different it could have been..."

>>51180038
This right here, intimidate can be used when you're on a boat or if you're a woman.

>>51180221
Are you implying that intimidating someone is the same thing as blackmail or torture?

Holy shit, how retarded are you? Parents are pretty damn intimidating when they threaten to ground young children for staying up late.

Does that mean parents should be sent to jail for "coercing" their kids to turn off the fucking TV and go to bed at a reasonable hour since they have school tomorrow?

The thing about a person who is intimidating is that you can TELL THEM NO, and then WALK AWAY.

It's not fucking hypnosis!

>>51179449
I mean, if they get off to that sort of thing.
>>51179589
>>51181269
Pretty much this.
>Snooty princess thinks you're just another meathead and tells you as much to your face
>Construct elegant and well-constructed response about how exactly you got your reputation for effectiveness
>Instant waterfall

>>51181141
You know, this might actually be legitimately true about Drow.

>>51179449

Depends on if he's into girls who can eat him or not.

>>51181046
>>51181087

>>51181087
>cis
doesn't exist

>>51181087
Nope, the cis- is prefix of Latin origin, it's not abbreviation.

>>51180303
Clearly, with the prevailing misuse of the word "cuck" and "meme" for the past years, 4chan is not the bastion of the English language it wishes it was.

>>51181741
"Cuck" is not a real word, you inbred shithead. If you're going to try to talk shit about someone else's grammar you should first make sure you are not, in fact, a complete fucking retard.

If you want to allow a toned down of "intimade" to just be "Being scary" or "an overbearing presence" then I can see it working.

Actively rolling intimidate instead of generic seduction option/skill does give it the idea of "sex, or else". I could certainly see using it as a "draw" though.

"You walk into the bar and catch X people's attention, a few because you're putting them on edge, but one is giving you a look of approval." Then proceed to either straight charisma with a miscellaneous bonus of some kind due to "knowing your audience" or something to proceed further.

>>51179449
>Could you use intimidate to make a non-rape attempt at seduction in 3.pathfinder D&D?
A good suggestion is to show off prowess in intimidation upon someone OTHER than the target of your desired affection.

"Hey babe, watch me flex so hard at this orc that he runs away from my virility"

>orc runs off terrified on successful intimidate

"How's THEM guns, eh babe?"

Bait: The Thread: The Commentchain: The Movie

>>51181906
Quality comment, bro. So snarky! Have an upvote!

What is your fucking problem? Why is this thread alive? Holy fuck I hate people

>>51181948
>going this far out of your way to bitch like a whore after an anal ravaging
kys plz

>>51181793
>Talk shit about someone else's grammer... complete fucking retard.
>He says while using commas like hundreds and thousands.

>>51181956
No u.

>>51181957
>grammer
Is your mother also your sister?

>>51181963
This is a site for people over the age of 18 anon.

>>51181974
Okay... I fucked that one up.

>>51181987
No u

>>51181994
Don't worry. Someday you'll find something you can do well.

>>51180055
lol, retard

>>51182003
It might involved stout branch and a piece of rope.

>>51180055
>coerced is a synonym of convinced
What a funny coincidence. My parents genuinely believed this too.

>>51182013
>giving such a short, meaningless reply to something posted hours ago that the author will likely never see
lol, retard

>>51180055
no its not you fucking mong

10/10 thread.

>>51179449
>Could you use intimidate to make a non-rape attempt at seduction in 3.pathfinder D&D?
No.
Firstly and most foremostly, BECAUSE INTIMIDATE ISN'T A SKILL USED FOR SEDUCTION, YOU DUMB FUCK.
And neither is Bluff suited for it. Diplomacy is the closest thing you will get to Seduction skill in DnD, and even that isn't quite right either.

>>51182003
Oh jeez, right in the self-confidence. You know how to kick someone when they're down don't you.

>>51182014
Pretty sure I'd fuck that up most of all, I'd wuss out, wouldn't be able to commit in the end. Like it or not I'm in it for the long haul, no matter how torturous and achingly painful it might become, there's no way I'd ever be able to go through with something like that.

>>51181906
Reddit: The post

>>51182024
>>51182013
>>51182030
How did the mean man coerce you, anon?

>>51182038
He's right tho

>>51182032
Bluff is absolutely seduction.

Intimidate is good if you know how to neg effectively.

>>51182041
/tg/ has a habit of turning bait threads into something at the very least passable. This... may not have been one of those times.

>>51181906
>>51182041
Reddit: The Samefag

>>51182000
Trips always win

File: Moly.png (916KB, 1870x922px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1870x922px

>>51182041
Now prove it

>>51182076
This is true.
Until quads.

>>51182083
No u

>>51182032
>And neither is Bluff
You mean if you bluff that you're wealthy guy and girl sleeps with you because of it then it's rape?

If a woman was significantly larger than me and was intimidating and in control, it would definitely help
her in a seduction roll against me

>>51182108
No, it's just not seduction.
Seduction is invoking feelings. There are no feelings involved in this situation.

File: jojo pretending to be retarded.jpg (58KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x405px

>>51180336

>>51182134
>Seduction is invoking feelings. There are no feelings involved in this situation
I never said that there were any feelings involved in this, she sleeps with you because you're rich and you sleep with her because she looks good, you're both have no feelings for each other

File: serveimage.jpg (42KB, 844x475px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 844x475px

>>51179449
It's pretty much a shoujo manga trope at this point. Pic related.

File: 1447691731457.jpg (341KB, 1688x948px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1688x948px

>>51179449
>intimidate
>to seduce
What am I supposed to imagine here? A barbarian who bends a bar of steel in half and winks at the subject of her desire? A barbarian who grabs a man by the tender bits and tells him she eats cute, little boys for breakfast?

>>51182705
>What am I supposed to imagine here?
A man in nice suit and glorious hair grabbing woman by a pussy

File: gaha.jpg (134KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 413x395px

>>51180055
>coerced is a synonym of convinced

Is English a second language in /pol/?

Coerce means to intimidate, harass, harangue, compel, or force someone into doing something.

File: 1478720617764.jpg (55KB, 750x734px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 750x734px

>>51182739
For all the uproar it has caused, I doubt many women would mind being grabbed by the pussy if the man in question is rich and powerful enough. Let's say it's not universally-hated Donald Trump but playboy and perpetually unmarried heartthrob Leonardo di Caprio grabbing them by the pussy. How many women would still whine about "toxic masculinity" at that point?

I'd be surprised if Leo hasn't grabbed a random woman and dragged her into a broomcloset at some point. Hell, that's how Rebecca Loos started her career: David Beckham dragged her into a broomcloset, she made no effort to resist and their scandalous affair made her a national celebrity.

>>51182759
It's funny situation because if you think about that whole uproar the only woman that complained are the one that were not grabbed by Trump

>>51179449
Maybe if the seducee is from a race that finds physical aggressiveness and intimidation hugely attractive. Or a Japanese schoolgirl.

>>51182783
Jealousy, thy name is Social Justice.

>>51182812
Most women probably aren't hankering after the Trump. He's a toad.

It takes a certain kind of woman to sleep with someone that repulsive for power/money. Much in the same way that most men wouldn't sleep with a saggy granny for cash. It hits the same "eugh how disgusting" nerves that prevent people from doing something even if their brain says that they have something to gain.

>>51182176
Well, that's my point? Seduction is specifically invoking feelings of affection. A one-night fling where both of the parties involved feel nothing for each other - not even passion - has nothing to do with seduction.

>>51182828
>It takes a certain kind of woman to sleep with someone that repulsive for power/money.
Most women?

>Much in the same way that most men wouldn't sleep with a saggy granny for cash.
You're projecting here. You're obviously a man projecting on women, failing to understand that you're wired differently from an evolultionary perspective.

Both men and women want the best mate for reproduction. For men that means women who are young, healthy, disease-free and of good enough sexual reputation to create no uncertainity about the father of their children (sorry tumblr, fatshaming and slutshaming are evolutionarily benficial). On the other hand, women mostly look for powerful men of high social standing with enough resources to protect and provide for them and their children, something women cannot do themselves (not without loads of affirmative action, which also more or less correlates with these women being less likely to marry).

Whine about how "repulsive" Trump is, grabbing women by the pussy works. Even better example: playboy and pussyslayer Mick Jagger. Do you think the man is handsome by any metric? Even "sexiest man of 2015" Benedict Cumberbatch looks like a downright fucking alien but he's famous and mostly known for playing a parody of a literary character that conforms entirely to the Dark Triad (to the point of downright calling himself a "high functioning sociopath" (something that doesn't even fucking exist)).

That "certain kind of woman" is the average woman, the majority of them are just unwilling to admit it because it would disspell the illusion of romantic love as being anything other than eros: selfish desire.

File: 0f9cb75bb3e0b18bf05e9e37bf544f8a.jpg (86KB, 564x624px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 564x624px

>>51179449
Yes

>>51179449

You are sitting at a table, trying to make the others believe you aren't getting an erection at the thought of not-raping your target and making them want you.

A target that is being played by the GM, that only exists in the minds of them and the players.

Masturbate *before* you go to the game.

File: 1341885823694.png (95KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x500px

>>51182900
>registering metabolic arousal
So it's no longer rape? You know some women orgasm during rape, right?

>>51182877
You're the only one projecting here - projecting your lack of romantic success onto the idea that all women are fundamentally shallow and are driven entirely by biological imperatives that steer them away from you.

Yes, women are wired differently. That doesn't mean they all want the same thing. A woman that would respond to being sexually harassed by Mick Jagger is not necessarily the same woman that would respond to being harassed by Trump. Believe it or not, most women find men like him disgusting, no matter how much money they have.

>>51182951
Nigga it's a joke.

He blasts her off him or something.

>>51182951
Most men get an erection when they're being molested and raped too.

The body doesn't give a fuck. Stimulation is stimulation.

>>51182963
I swear, people are so thin-skinned nowadays.

Instead of debating shit civilly in a light tone, they prefer to be offended and shutdown discussion, like a child throwing a tantrum.

I'd say depending on the definition of 'intimidation' and the likes/dislikes of the person being seduced.

As someone who's into Femdom, if a woman acted all confident and a bit scary, dominant around me, and she was someone I found attractive (no fatties), I'd probably be very interested in willingly let her do horrible things to me.

However, if someone isn't into femdom, or if the girl isn't attractive to them, the same situation could quickly turn into a nightmare scenario.

And I say the type of intimidation matters because someone can be intimidating without threats of violence. Merely by acting confident and being perceived as out of one's league, a person can be intimidating to talk with. But usually D&D intimidation is more about threat of violence or reprisals...And that's pretty much always rape.

>>51182955
>projecting your lack of romantic success
Yes, I'm the one projecting here.

>Yes, women are wired differently. That doesn't mean they all want the same thing
Of course not, dealing with humans is never an exact science and you'll hear very few people hold that position. But we can certainly speak in terms of trends, especially when those trends line up with neurological observations.

>A woman that would respond to being sexually harassed by Mick Jagger is not necessarily the same woman that would respond to being harassed by Trump
Because Trump has been politically crucified. Try Trump five years ago.

Also, notice your grand counterargument falling down to "B-But Trump is a meanie-head!". Notice that you have debunked absolutely nothing I said by admitting that women still go crazy over Mick Jagger, a man who looks like he fell down the ugly tree and faceplanted on the ugly pavement after hitting every ugly branch on the way down. He's neither attractive nor loyal nor a good husband nor a particularly good conversationalist. He's rich and he's famous.

File: hahaha oh man hah.gif (3MB, 432x245px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 432x245px

>>51182877
>grabbing women by the pussy works

I challenge you to go and try this right now.

Remember to wear a suit and comb your hair first.

>>51180055
>coerced
>synonym of convinced
Holy shit, the retards are out in full fucking force this morning.

>>51179465
I would say yes, but it would only work of the person's into that. Probably make an insight/whatever the equivalent of insight is check before trying.

>>51182991
You know the average salaryman who spends 40 years paying off his student loans wears a suit, right? Get me an Armani suit, a golden Rolex, a giant limo with a built-in pool, make it appear as if I'm the owner of whatever fancy nightclub this hypothetical situation is taking place in and I can guarantee that out of three women I grab by the pussy, at least one of them will follow me home.

>>51182984
>Try Trump five years ago.

He's still highly physically unattractive and has an abrasive, obnoxious personality. Both are things women find extremely unattractive.

There ARE women for whom the lure of cash money flowin' easy can negate those things, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's the majority.

>Notice that you have debunked absolutely nothing I said by admitting that women still go crazy over Mick Jagger, a man who looks like he fell down the ugly tree and faceplanted on the ugly pavement after hitting every ugly branch on the way down. He's neither attractive nor loyal nor a good husband nor a particularly good conversationalist. He's rich and he's famous.

He has a whole slew of attractive qualities, dude. He's a talented singer known for his bad boy image. The cult of personality surrounding him is on a whole other level and a whole different type from the attractiveness of money. In his prime, he was a sex symbol, not because of his wealth, but because of his music and the image he cultivated. Now he's attractive to golddiggers, but not ever women is like that.

>>51183040
>abrasive, obnoxious personality
>women find extremely unattractive
>not every woman is like that

File: HA HA HAA.jpg (67KB, 617x603px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 617x603px

>>51183020
>Get me an Armani suit, a golden Rolex, a giant limo with a built-in pool, make it appear as if I'm the owner of whatever fancy nightclub this hypothetical situation is taking place in and I can guarantee that out of three women I grab by the pussy, at least one of them will follow me home.

Nigga, the only thing following you home will be a bunch of bruises.

Even given all those things, you need to make yourself convincing as a suave rich playboy, and I doubt you have the capability for that. The women that are likely to grab that bait are the kind that enjoy excitement and physicality, so you best be ready to 1. not be an awkward boring turd and 2. be somewhat good looking.

>>51183052
Generally speaking.

More women enjoy physically attractive men than physically unattractive men.

More women enjoy men who are funny and charismatic than men that are creepy and obnoxious.

>>51183078
Women care about wealth more than any of those things.

>>51183091
>source: my ass

>>51183020
>>51183066

Q: How do you see if a Rolex is Fake?
A: You look at the owner.

As for intimidate for non-rapey seduction; it would only work for Konrad Curze or other Edgelords, and only on Curzefags and similiar Edgelords.

Otherwise no. If you make someone do something against their will, it's not consent.

>>51183172
>As for intimidate for non-rapey seduction; it would only work for Konrad Curze or other Edgelords, and only on Curzefags and similiar Edgelords.

Kek, I'm imagining Konrad pulling a kabe-don on some random goth chick in a club now, putting his power claw through the wall and everything.

>>51182680
This is a right answer

File: Fighter Casts Charm.webm (358KB, 720x306px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 720x306px

>>51179449
Pic related.

File: Fighter casts charm.jpg (146KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1366x768px

>>51183504
alternative

>>51179449
Yes. Consider yourself in a club, you've alpha ninja'd a HB9 and she won't put out. What do you do? Neg that bitch.

>>51181200
>Definition of intimidate
>frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants
You can frighten someone just by mentioning the implications of refusal. Intimidation doesn't have to be some retard yelling edgy crap about how he is going to to torture you. Just mentioning the implications of refusal is still intimidation as long as the goal is to threaten into doing what you want.

>>51183765

And that still makes it rape. As it's now coercion rather than persuasion.

>>51183765
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE

File: 47215756_p0.jpg (527KB, 1150x1300px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1150x1300px

World of Darkness lets you do this.

>>51182783
Except like a dozen women he assaulted did complain all over a bunch of networks.

>>51179449
Yes.

It's less coercion and more circumstantial though like in the case of political marriage, or a farmwoman paying for her husband's rescue with her body, or you've got a girl in the middle of nowhere, and the only way you're doing fuck all for her if she strips.

Or if being dominated is their thing

>>51181479
Holy shit. Are you serious?

I fucking hate the tumbler SJW "rape culture" bullshit, but this thread just proves the point.

>>51185790
Only once the media circus started and they started clamoring for attention.

>>51185790
Name a single one that came forward with a credible accusation and not just some MSM "guilty until proven innocent" garbage.

>>51186680
>but this thread just proves the point
which point? This thread proves that it's possible to have intimidation that leads to something else that rape like in your average woman novel or anime

>>51187855
That's not true. Women's novels are all about rape fantasies

>>51179449
Sure, if the seduction wasn't going as far as sex.

Say, browbeating them into a date.
There would still be rape-y undertones tho.

>>51179449
like "she's a bored princess being guarded by some stick in the mud, and I intimidate him into fucking off, so now I look cool and dangerous and she wants to bone?"
Like, it would be using intimidation, and it would have a result of seduction, but there's clearly a couple extra steps there.

What about that trapping them against the wall thing they do in Shoujo manga?

Guys who are intimidating and kind of rapey seem to be the favorites in that genre.

itt: anons who have never been laid

File: kabe_don_example.jpg (210KB, 680x638px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 680x638px

>>51188649
It's called kabe-don and it's exactly what OP described, it is intimidation that works as seduction

File: 1470732995938.jpg (50KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 480x360px

>>51188982
you're also in this thread anon

>>51179449
No. Intimidating someone into sex is statutorily rape.

>>51180368
Al dente.

File: 1422320811606.gif (1011KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 500x269px

>>51182828
>>51183040

Nigger, you're male and Trump is like 70. Obviously, he's not as attractive to you today as he would have been to women maybe 20, 30 years ago. Don't pretend that he looked and acted like he does now all his life; he'd never have gotten where he is if that were the case.

>>51189146
But is it morally rape?

>>51189432
That was without question.

>>51189531
But is it spiritually rape?

>>51189146
>No.
What is not rape then?

Basically, as long as the intended purpose isn't to coerce someone into sex, it would count so long as the person is into feeling intimidated. The kabe-don manga trope usually works because the guy is grilling the gril about something else. When he's doing it to specifically get under her skirt it's usually depicted as scummy.

>>51179449
This is why I don't like sex in my games.

>>51181087
IT'S FROM THE LATIN ANTONYM TO THE PREFIX "TRANS" YOU FUCKING MONG

>>51190183
The kabe-don thing kind of ties into the suspension bridge effect. They associate the heart pounding sensation with other emotions.

>>51189690
How many layers of rape are you on right now?

File: xQQhsj7.png (91KB, 208x305px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 208x305px

>>51190739
Like, maybe 5 or 6 right now, man.

>>51191047
You are like a little baby.
Watch this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB5sMP9Z5O4

>>51191047
Victim Girls #20 ?

>>51180739
People would be more willing to keep believing the "rape" shit if we didn't know for a fact more than half the people who are in jail for rape are innocent.
>>51180995
It's rape anyway because everything is rape.

>>51191304
>if we didn't know for a fact more than half the people who are in jail for rape are innocent.
Do you have a source for that? Part of me hopes you're shitting me.

>>51191375
He's full of shit and there is no source. This is true for anyone who claims to know the proportion of false rape reports and/or convictions, whether they purport it to be 2% or 41%. The number is not known, period.

>>51188649
Women don't like to fuck pussies, and not all agression is violence. Most of these layers upon layers of legal mumbo jumbo that make sex increasingly more difficult to be had, are being proposed by perpetual virgin fujoshits in gender studies, and abused by gold-diggers and lawyers.

>>51191937
that's great but in the end you've said nothing, does his example fit what OP asked or not? Also D&D =/= real life

>>51191375
FBI put false rape allegations (unfounded, unprovable or proven false) at 81% before the social media generation whined that proving you lied about being raped was misogynist.

>>51192001
>Being admired by a threatening individual is a trope of female-targeted romance fiction
Yes, threaten to seduce works with women. Ignore the numales and tumblrites.

File: MillerGZ1.png (112KB, 371x381px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 371x381px

>>51191937
>not all agression is violence
>t. NAP violator

>>51182877
Benedict Cumberbatch is retarded.

>>51181479
>The thing about a person who is intimidating is that you can TELL THEM NO, and then WALK AWAY.
At which point they fucking kill/maim/destroy/burn/slander you and/or your wife/kids/house/reputation, idiot. The whole point of a threat is that it's achievable and WILL HAPPEN if your demands aren't met.
If I walked up to somebody and said "give me your wallet or I'll launch a nuke at Moscow" it wouldn't be a threat, it'd be a bad joke. If the President said such to Putin, it would very much be a threat.

>>51182877
>a parody of a literary character that conforms entirely to the Dark Triad (to the point of downright calling himself a "high functioning sociopath" (something that doesn't even fucking exist))
As i recall the exchange a police officer calls Sherlock a psychopath, and he replies that's he's a high functioning sociopath, telling her she should do her research. Given that Sherlock in that show is a lying asshole who likes to troll people, he was probably aware that the term doesn't exist and was just saying it to look superior, knowing the officer wouldn't actually look it up.

>>51192808
Either that, or you're putting more thought into the script than the writers. I have an inkling it's the latter, considering they couldn't even get the character of Sherlock right in a show called Sherlock.

File: 30STM - Closer To The Edge.jpg (149KB, 800x820px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 800x820px

>>51179837
>coercion into unwilling sex
>not rape
I mean, it's my thing too anon, but there's no need to be so in denial about it

File: well....gif (3MB, 286x258px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 286x258px

>>51180368

>>51182759
>made her a national celebrity
>literally who

>>51179449
Girls like tough guys, you should be able to seduce one by intimidating someone else.

>>51182863
>sex
>no passion

My god, you must have the most boring sex life ever.

File: laughingeldarwhores.jpg (64KB, 600x538px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x538px

>>51193739
>7chink
>/tg/
>any sex life at all

>>51192011
>Do you have a source for that?
Repeating yourself isn't a source.

>>51179449
You could intimidate someone else to get a women to fuck you.

ALL THE ANONS BITCHING IN THIS THREAD ABOUT HOW INTIMIDATION CAN'T TURN WOMEN ON AND IS RAPE HAVE CLEARLY NEVER SEEN ANY OF THOSE CHEESY ROMANCE NOVELS WHERE EVERY SINGLE MAN ON THE COVER IS BULGING WITH GIGANTIC MUSCLES AND THE MAIN CHARACTER IS ALWAYS DESCRIBED AS "DARK, DANGEROUS, LETHAL, MYSTERIOUS" AND CRAP LIKE THAT.

Quit projecting your own beta faggot insecurities into this thread. No matter how nice you are, the chick you're trying to fuck will always turn you down for the muscle bound jock who literally backs them into a corner at the party to make sure they can't escape while he brags about how awesome his giant dick is at hitting the G spot.

Women like intimidating men, it turns them on. And no, it's not rape if they willingly choose to have sex with the most intimidating man in the room who makes all the cucks run like roaches.

The only cunts who spout this kind of shit are mean old spinster lesbians who honestly believe that any penis into vagina sex is automatically rape. Because lol, no woman is born heterosexual. It's the patriarchy lying to you. And men aren't born gay either, they're just sooooo sexist they'd rather shove it up another guys pooper before contaminating themselves with pussy juices.

Seriously, this is how fucking retarded you all sound.

And I'm equally fucking retarded for taking the god damn bait.

WE ARE ALL FUCKING RETARDED. SO FUCKING RETARDED.

WHY AM I EVEN HERE?!!! I DON'T EVEN PLAY D&D!!!!

FUCK

>>51192176
Yeah, bad shit MAY happen. But notice in your very own post nowhere did you mention the one doing the intimidating forces the other person into sexual intercourse.

They freely choose, of their own volition, to either submit and perform sexual acts, or to say no, and walk away.

Therefor, it's not rape. Dumb ass.

>>51179449
Isn't that what tsundere is doing? Or maybe it's playing hard to get/ tough guy act.

>rolls intimidate to seduce.
"It's not like I like you or anything"
> target swoons

File: 870661250525490.jpg (64KB, 600x776px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x776px

>>51182863
I suggest you look up the definition of seduction, because that's just not how English works.

File: 1418439294775.jpg (122KB, 442x810px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 442x810px

>>51194500
>Isn't that what tsundere is doing?
Quite the opposite, they deny having feelings and may or may not lower their guard later on.

OP's description is probably closer to that of a yandere, who's more likely to claim a man as hers and eliminate any threats to their (not always mutual) romance with extreme prejudice.

>>51180032
The part where it's not rape if you turn unwilling to willing, even if it's via deception?

File: 32245.png (207KB, 384x404px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 384x404px

>>51180055
>coerced is synonymous with convinced
oh, you.

File: Meiko_lewd.jpg (33KB, 632x960px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 632x960px

>>51179449
>Roll intimidate to seduce
>Roll insight to see if they're a sub who's into that type of seduction

>>51179449
Of course. You just have to convince them to say yes.

>have sex with me or I'll kill your family
>*roll high on intimidate
>*NPC fails will check
>"o-oh-k, please don't kill my family"

The NPC wont enjoy it, but it wont technically be rape because they "consented", even if under duress.

>>51196432
You can't consent under duress.

>>51179449
>intimidate some random guy
>all the girls in the are see how powerful you are
>gives you bonus to seduction roll.

Seems legit and totally innocent. Hurt some guys feelings but who cares?

>>51196497
Hence the quotation marks.

Consent is literally making an agreement to do something. It might be blackmail, but someone can still consent to sex as a way of saving their family. Just take one for the team, even if you're not too keen. It wont be pleasant, but at least your family will be able to live.

The person is under no pressure to consent, they make up their mind freely. Its just that if they dont do it, you kill their family. Its their choice. So they can consent, or not. If they consent, you do it, if not, you kill their family. Either way its not rape, its just blackmail.

>>51184236
Yes, that was the root of this post. See >>51181040

>>51184002
Eh, not denying that, just saying that Dennis' implication is intimidation. If the hypothetical Dennis character wanted to roll to seduce in that situation he could legitimately roll intimidate.

At the end of the day it could be compared to trying to trick someone into fucking you by making them think you are their husband. While legally it would be rape, in both that case and the Dennis case it is effectively consensual sex (if succeeded) as the other party wouldn't resist the matter. Either way its creepy as fuck.

>>51191047
Sauce?

File: incredibles-disneyscreencaps.com-4836.jpg (152KB, 1920x802px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1920x802px

>>51179449
If they're attracted to power

>>51196566
I like your logic, it's clearly blackmail and not rape

We need Nazimod back.

>>51200294
>We need someone to control other people who hurt my feelings
Why not go to tumblr? Oh, right, because SJW cannot live and let live. They NEED to prosletyze. You know, at least Jehova's Witnesses leave when you ask them to.

>>51200294
Why are you kink shaming us? What's wrong with having a fetish for being dominated/raped?

>>51180368
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

File: 1435144360-077.jpg (171KB, 295x850px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 295x850px

>>51189022

>>51179449
Yes

Unless she actually physically resists to the point of unconsciousness, then she consents to sex
- the German legal system

>>51180336

> Using tumblr is an insult

The most degrading, disgusting, depraved, "problematic" porn I've ever seen is on tumblr. It's awesome for that. You want some patriarchal race-play incest blog? Yep, go ahead.

>>51193517
>Donald Trump does a Q&A on Reddit
>"Guiz he's totally anti-reddit and pro-/pol/!"

>>51200563
>Unless she actually physically resists to the point of unconsciousness, then she consents to sex
>- the German legal system

Please shut up about things you know nothing about.

§ 177
Sexueller Übergriff; sexuelle Nötigung; Vergewaltigung

(1) Wer gegen den erkennbaren Willen einer anderen Person sexuelle Handlungen an dieser Person vornimmt oder von ihr vornehmen lässt oder diese Person zur Vornahme oder Duldung sexueller Handlungen an oder von einem Dritten bestimmt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft.

(2) Ebenso wird bestraft, wer sexuelle Handlungen an einer anderen Person vornimmt oder von ihr vornehmen lässt oder diese Person zur Vornahme oder Duldung sexueller Handlungen an oder von einem Dritten bestimmt, wenn
1. der Täter ausnutzt, dass die Person nicht in der Lage ist, einen entgegenstehenden Willen zu bilden oder zu äußern,
2. der Täter ausnutzt, dass die Person auf Grund ihres körperlichen oder psychischen Zustands in der Bildung oder Äußerung des Willens erheblich eingeschränkt ist, es sei denn, er hat sich der Zustimmung dieser Person versichert,
3. der Täter ein Überraschungsmoment ausnutzt,
4. der Täter eine Lage ausnutzt, in der dem Opfer bei Widerstand ein empfindliches Übel droht, oder
5. der Täter die Person zur Vornahme oder Duldung der sexuellen Handlung durch Drohung mit einem empfindlichen Übel genötigt hat.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

(4) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter einem Jahr ist zu erkennen, wenn die Unfähigkeit, einen Willen zu bilden oder zu äußern, auf einer Krankheit oder Behinderung des Opfers beruht.

>>51200608
(5) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter einem Jahr ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter
1. gegenüber dem Opfer Gewalt anwendet,
2. dem Opfer mit gegenwärtiger Gefahr für Leib oder Leben droht oder
3. eine Lage ausnutzt, in der das Opfer der Einwirkung des Täters schutzlos ausgeliefert ist.

(6) In besonders schweren Fällen ist auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter zwei Jahren zu erkennen. Ein besonders schwerer Fall liegt in der Regel vor, wenn
1. der Täter mit dem Opfer den Beischlaf vollzieht oder vollziehen lässt oder ähnliche sexuelle Handlungen an dem Opfer vornimmt oder von ihm vornehmen lässt, die dieses besonders erniedrigen, insbesondere wenn sie mit einem Eindringen in den Körper verbunden sind (Vergewaltigung), oder
2. die Tat von mehreren gemeinschaftlich begangen wird.

(7) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter drei Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter
1. eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug bei sich führt,
2. sonst ein Werkzeug oder Mittel bei sich führt, um den Widerstand einer anderen Person durch Gewalt oder Drohung mit Gewalt zu verhindern oder zu überwinden, oder
3. das Opfer in die Gefahr einer schweren Gesundheitsschädigung bringt.

(8) Auf Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren ist zu erkennen, wenn der Täter
1. bei der Tat eine Waffe oder ein anderes gefährliches Werkzeug verwendet oder
2. das Opfer
a) bei der Tat körperlich schwer misshandelt oder
b) durch die Tat in die Gefahr des Todes bringt.

(9) In minder schweren Fällen der Absätze 1 und 2 ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu drei Jahren, in minder schweren Fällen der Absätze 4 und 5 ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu zehn Jahren, in minder schweren Fällen der Absätze 7 und 8 ist auf Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr bis zu zehn Jahren zu erkennen.

File: 77cdc828cef6a45390f4cde156be5875014ae140[1].jpg (28KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x300px

>>51200608
>>51200614
>He thinks the letter of the law means anything to those unwilling to enforce it

File: 5120hRdDRcL.jpg (48KB, 307x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 307x500px

>>51182039

> How did the mean man coerce you, anon?

"Have sex with me or you're fired".

Still rape dudes and dudettes.

HOWEVER

Rape is cool in fiction. So long as you don't believe it's fine to do irl.

>>51182759

> Lesbians don't exist.

Why anon? They are a fantasy staple.

>>51200674
>Lesbians
>A thing
Female sexuality is fucking retarded. For self-identified straight men studies produce very straightforward results: men are turned on by heterosexual and lesbian pornography, but not by homosexual pornography nor images of two bonobos fucking. Self-identified straight women on the other hand are equally turned on by straight porn, gay porn, lesbian porn and bonobos fucking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html

I'm honestly convinced lesbianism isn't even a thing and women are just turned on by whatever's convenient given the circumstances. It would fit with the evolutionary role of women: to be fucked by the winners du jour (doesn't matter whether it's her husband or the man who just disemboweled her husband, as evidenced by the fact how eagerly European women spread their cuntflaps for Nazi's and how eagerly Japanese women took the American cock after two nukes).

>>51193963
Nice try /r9k/.

>>51196566
Yeah man, like if you point a gun at someone and tell them to give you all their valuables or you'll fucking kill them, it's not actually theft, because they chose to give you their stuff, so it's legally yours now.

If consent is not freely given, it is not legally consent, which is what the whole part about not being able to consent under duress means.

Consent is a legal concept more than anything else, so arguing about what's rape and then trying to not use the legal definition of what is and isn't consent.

>>51200651
are you retarded?
These laws are enforced. This does not mean that you can always prevent rape from happening.

File: 1478743316623.jpg (75KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x1024px

>>51194075

> They freely choose, of their own volition, to either submit and perform sexual acts, or to say no, and walk away.

Holy shit. Actually defending literal rape on /tg/. That's kind of saddening.

Saying you'll kill someone if they don't have sex with you is rape. You can't force consent.

>>51200701

Men are turned on by penises.

Try /d/

>>51200742
every woman deserves to be raped, though, rape isn't something that should be defended.

>>51200701

> European women spread their cuntflaps for Nazi's and how eagerly Japanese women took the American cock after two nukes

To feed their children. And not always willingly.

Christ. Go back to /pol/, it's a containment board for a reason. This hobby needs to ostracise fuckwits like you.

File: boob_envy_by_yngvarasplund-d6da651.png (804KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 1024x576px

>>51200758

I'm more comfortable with someone saying that than claiming you can force someone to consent to something.

>>51200703

/thread

>>51200758
>every woman deserves to be raped, though

I award you one (You) for this comment

>>51200774
>To feed their children.
Even the ones without children? Of course it's entirely impossible that such behavior has developed because it's evolutionarily benificial and all women with ingroup loyalty have been filtered out of the genepool,right? Because as we all know, evolution stops at the neck.

>Go back to /pol/
Even though I criticize women for fucking Nazi's rather than spinning a "women love the nordic master race" narrative?

Get your insults straight, you little bitch.

>>51200703
>like if you point a gun at someone and tell them to give you all their valuables or you'll fucking kill them, it's not actually theft, because they chose to give you their stuff, so it's legally yours now.

Totally different. Valuables are actual physical things and they belong to people.

But if they threw them away and you picked them up, then that's not theft.

Women are going to have sex with someone at some point, so if you point a gun at them and tell them it's going to be you, right now, then that's going to not be very different from them having sex with someone at some point in the future.

>>51200869
Money's worth isn't a physical thing, it's a construct, and you're, at some point going to spent it at some point in the future anyway so it's not that much different if it's on you.

You've spent too much effort with too little payoff for someone insincere, you're a retard.

>>51200859

> Even the ones without children?

Yeah, their siblings or siblings children. You're talking about a period of time when millions of people were killed.

> Women having to have sex to feed their children has a background in evolution, so that means they are sluts and lesbians don't exist!

Wat.

> Get your insults straight, you little bitch.

Not everyone in /pol/ loves nazis. Some are insane ancaps or libertarians or indeed, edgy virgins.

Women having sex with men in the forties during a period of immense human suffering, danger, starvation and death does not prove women are just attracted to anything, including your sweaty neckbearded attemps at seduction thru rape.

>>51200869

So.. if a black guy forced you to suck his dick at gunpoint, you're a faggot that loves black cock and totally wanted to do it?

Makes sense now.

File: ohmy.gif (1004KB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 250x187px

>>51200869

> If a woman is going to choose to have sex with a man, I should be able to force her to have sex with me

>>51200908
>Yeah, their siblings or siblings children.
And of course, as soon as the war ended in Japan all jobs disappeared, right? Buzz off.

>Muh already existing children
Nah bruh, I'm talking about seeking mates, the one thing that drives evolution? Our sole evolutionary reason for existing? Women without ties to any in-group do better because they can simply opt to fuck whoever wins rather than being fiercely loyal to "their" loser men.

>Not everyone in /pol/ loves nazis. Some are insane ancaps or libertarians or indeed, edgy virgins.
And which am I? Please, do project.

>Women having sex with men in the forties during a period of immense human suffering, danger, starvation and death does not prove women are just attracted to anything
Indeed, it proves they're attracted to winners. No matter how gruesome or how cruel those winners may be, or how many of their sons those winners have castrated mere hours ago.

>>51200999

> And of course, as soon as the war ended in Japan all jobs disappeared, right? Buzz off.

Women weren't in the workforce much in the forties in Japan you dolt. If they were widowed, or indeed their entire family was burnt to a goddamn crisp, those rich American GIs with plenty of cash might look pretty appetising from the "I don't want to literally starve to death" standpoint.

> Nah bruh, I'm talking about seeking mates, the one thing that drives evolution?

Women sleeping with an invading enemy doesn't preclude the existence of fucking Lesbians bruh. It's a total non sequitur. There might very well have been women who just wanted to have sex with the snazzy looking SS Officer because he was attractive. Again, not sure what your point is.

> Indeed, it proves they're attracted to winners.

It proves some are. It doesn't prove all women are. Otherwise there wouldn't have been those dangerous looking ones with fucking scissors after France was liberated.

> No matter how gruesome or how cruel those winners may be, or how many of their sons those winners have castrated mere hours ago.

Bullshit. The Rape of Nanking wasn't a bunch of chinese women all totally into being beheaded after being raped by 150 men.

Probably something other than "winner" going on.

File: 1479333872792.jpg (29KB, 238x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 238x357px

>>51200742
>Actually defending literal rape on /tg/
I never understood why rape is regarded as something so much worse than: killing, brainwashing, torture, theft, rising dead and any other awful thing that is completely okay in any type of tabletop, can someone explain this to me?

>>51200869
>But if they threw them away and you picked them up, then that's not theft.

Because they chose, of their own volition to discard that object, to relinquish their claim to it. Not relevant to the example I gave.

>Women are going to have sex with someone at some point, so if you point a gun at them and tell them it's going to be you, right now, then that's going to not be very different from them having sex with someone at some point in the future.

I agree, same as why because people will all die at some point, murder should be legal, because it's not really that different, and the same as most people probably will sell their car at some point, so we should just be allowed to steal cars, because it's not that different. And most people will probably have surgery at some point in their lives, so if you just knock them over the head and start removing organs with a scalpel it's not really that different from having surgery at some point in the future.

You getting the pattern here? One is something that tends to naturally happen over the course of our lives, and we either choose to have happen, or is part of being human. The other is something forced onto us by another person against our will.

You're being so retarded I honestly can't tell if you're some prime memer straight from /r9k/ or are just baiting though, because I refuse to believe anyone could be this retarded.

I've seen people argue rape isn't bad for all sorts of reasons, but yours is by far the worst. At least "Rape should be legal because I hate women and feel they deserve it" has a solid line of logic to follow, and is in the end just someones subjective opinion.

>>51201099

So you know, I also said this;

>>51200662

> Rape is cool in fiction. So long as you don't believe it's fine to do irl.

Rape is fucking fun, funny, interesting, exciting, erotic, arousing, entertaining etc etc. It's cool. Love that shit. Totally read female wank-fiction about sexual slavery on the mines of alpha centauri.

That doesn't mean ACTUAL rape is okay.

As for explaining the position players have - a lot don't want to be around ThatGuy. And ThatGuy usually tries to explain how what they are doing ISNT rape.

Which is fucking creepy.

>>51201047
>Women weren't in the workforce much in the forties in Japan you dolt. If they were widowed, or indeed their entire family was burnt to a goddamn crisp, those rich American GIs with plenty of cash might look pretty appetising from the "I don't want to literally starve to death" standpoint.
My point exactly: there's no point in being loyal to Japan or feeling resentment over the death of your own husband and sons. At that point, all that matters is that the winners have the resources and the losers do not. It's exactly my point: the real losers of the war were the Japanese men, the Japanese women would be fine. All that changes was whether they'd have yellow, white or black babies.

>Women sleeping with an invading enemy doesn't preclude the existence of fucking Lesbians bruh. It's a total non sequitur.
Yeah, that's very convenient. Such a shame it's a strawman. Let me spell out my logic, because it appears it's too complicated to be self-evident to you.
>Women are turned on by fucking everyone (this is a premise, not a conclusion, which I supported with my earlier posted article)
>Women have no interest in in-group loyalty (this is a hypothesis that, while not falsifiable, has a lot of explanatory power (explaining why women are so easy to betray their own peopel after a war, why women overwhelmingly vote pro-migration, why women contribute less to Western governments than they gain from it etc.))
>From this the conclusion stems that women will fuck whatever is convenient to them at that time
>Ergo there are no 'real' lesbian women, nor are there 'real' heterosexual women, nor 'real' women who are exclusively attracted to humans.

>The Rape of Nanking wasn't a bunch of chinese women all totally into being beheaded after being raped by 150 men.
I agree most women don't really like being beheaded. That kind of reduces their odds of reproducing.

>>51179449
I was actually wondering about intimidating some kinky half-demon NPCs into ill-advised sex just the other day. It probably wouldn't work on anyone who's life doesn't literally revolve around getting sexually abused though.

>>51201099
Well, legally it's not worse than killing, brainwashing or torture, but I think it's considered worse in a gaming sense because those tend to show up either really commonly (killing people is a major part of most settings, bad guys doing it isn't shocking), and torture is very overdone as far as bad dudes go, or is a morally grey thing.

Rape kind of doesn't have a morally grey version, and it's relatively unused in settings, so it's more shocking than the rest.

Objectively I don't think anyone rational would argue that rape is worse than being kidnapped and tortured for weeks or something like that.

File: sooyoung_wink_thumbs_up_zps3fdd7359.gif (4MB, 350x289px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 350x289px

>>51201112

From the other triggered anon in this thread, you're awesome.

This guy is just a bitter weirdo who think he deserves a nerdy girlfriend.

>>51201164
Glad you think so, but I honestly think he's just baiting, or trying to at least.

It all comes across as trying way too hard, and there's nowhere near enough logic put into any of it for it to be some strong belief of his.

Like, the logic of "Women sometimes are forced to prostitute themselves in order to feed their families therefore women enjoy sex with whoever has more resources" is just a joke. The same happens with men being forced into all sorts of distasteful positions, including prostitution in many cases to do the same.

>>51201184
>>51201164
now kiss

>>51180055
> quamvis si liberum noluissem, tamen coactus volui
>Paulus, II-II century A.D.
tfw when ancient saying is still relevant.
Consent given under duress is not really consent.

>>51194075

You literally roll the dice to make the NPC do what you want. If you roll well enough, they do it.

You have convinced them that bad enough shit *will* happen if they don't do what you want, and they give in. If they don't believe you or decide that they can risk it, then you failed the roll.

>>51201124

> My point exactly: there's no point in being loyal to Japan or feeling resentment over the death of your own husband and sons.

There's no point if you're going to starve and you don't want to starve.

> It's exactly my point: the real losers of the war were the Japanese men, the Japanese women would be fine.

Wat. So your point is ... women chose to have sex with men so they didn't starve.. so that means women are only ATTRACTED to men who have power?

That makes no sense.

> This is my "logic"

That a dogshit argument. It's a bunch of nonsensical alt-right dogma. Your only evidence is a fucking "article".

> nor 'real' women who are exclusively attracted to humans.

Are you talking about elves here, or are you now claiming all women will fuck a dog if it gets them a quick buck?

Women in societies that barely gave them any rights needed to essentially do what the men in power wanted to get anywhere in life. To stay safe.

It was designed that way. It wasn't because women wanted it that way.

There are women who aren't attracted to men, and even if ALL women were attracted to men - that doesn't give you the right to RAPE THEM.

File: raw.gif (1MB, 498x286px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 498x286px

>>51201184

Well that's not true, I don't recall any circumstance where men fucked say, other men, just because they were in a position where it would mean they were safe or protec..

>>51201222
>There's no point if you're going to starve and you don't want to starve.
Indeed, so women gain exactly nothing from in-group loyalty and lose nothing when spreading their legs for whatever side is winning. Why do you insist I'm wrong when you in fact agree?

>Wat. So your point is ... women chose to have sex with men so they didn't starve.. so that means women are only ATTRACTED to men who have power?
When this shit happens for millions of years, it's bound to have an impact on their psychology. The kind of women who resented the enemy who killed their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons and either turned away from their conquerors or sought to enact revenge died, did not reproduce and did not pass on these traits.

>alt-right dogma
Nice projection.

>Your only evidence is a fucking "article".
An article citing a study, as opposed to your zero sources. Did you even read it, or did you a priori decide that my non-mainstream views are automatically wrong for not being mainstream?

Be honest here: are you willing to listen and consider the perspective of those who disagree with you, or do you just insist on proving me wrong? I need to know that to know whether I'm wasting my time here.

File: large.gif (505KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 500x250px

>>51201190

>Could you use intimidate to make a non-rape attempt at seduction in 3.pathfinder D&D?

Of course. Threatening someone isn't the same as using force and raping someone.

>>51201221
>You literally roll the dice to make the NPC do what you want. If you roll well enough, they do it.
>You have convinced them that bad enough shit *will* happen if they don't do what you want, and they give in. If they don't believe you or decide that they can risk it, then you failed the roll.

Alright, first of all, there's more to it than that, unless you're just a rollplaying faggot. But secondly, everything you just said basically details why it's not rape.

A threat is not rape. You can still say no. It might become rape, but if you agree to something, it's not rape. It's really not that hard to grasp.

File: fleshsmell.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>51200476
I smell woman's flesh, how is it possible that they are still not completely driven out of this board, it's unacceptable

>>51200742
>Actually defending literal rape on /tg/.
>literal rape
No, nobody is defending literal rape.

>Saying you'll kill someone if they don't have sex with you is rape.
No. Neither is whistling in public, looking at you across the street, trying to start a conversation with you, "manspreading", "mansplaining", asking you out, or turning you down

Go back to Tumblr, where everything is rape and you can stay offended in your echo-chamber with the other social justice warriors and your newspeak.

>>51200662

Yeah. It's the wonders of Porno-land. In Porno-land, everyone secretly wants sex and no one is actually not interested in the partner they are with. Like how in action, shotguns blow people across the room and a crucifix is a 100% bulletproof object.

It's very interesting, if running right into 'Alright, now remember the difference between reality and fiction' just as hard as people who think guns work like the do in action movies.

>>51201291
according to /tg/ even approaching a girl can be seen as threatening

>>51201260

> Why do you insist I'm wrong when you in fact agree?

Because what you are establishing doesn't prove your argument.

> lose nothing when spreading their legs for whatever side is winning.

But they frequently did. They were attacked, shamed, ostracised etc.

> The kind of women who resented the enemy who killed their fathers, husbands, brothers and sons

Still did. You can do that and still have sex with them. Especially when the "spoils of war" meant raping women. For thousands of years.

Evolution doesn't occur over that time. It does not make women therefore attracted sexually to anyone.

Sex was the only currency women had for quite some time. That doesn't mean that all women are attracted to men.

Men in prison get fucked by other men because that's the only currency they have.

> Nice projection.

Women not contributing to western society as much as men is Alt-Right dogma.

> An article citing a study, as opposed to your zero sources

From the study;

"Ultimately, though, Chivers spoke — always with a scientist’s caution, a scientist’s uncertainty and acknowledgment of conjecture — about female sexuality as divided between two truly separate, if inscrutably overlapping, systems, the physiological and the subjective. Lust, in this formulation, resides in the subjective, the cognitive; physiological arousal reveals little about desire. Otherwise, she said, half joking, “I would have to believe that women want to have sex with bonobos.”

Did YOU read it?

> are you willing to listen and consider the perspective of those who disagree with you, or do you just insist on proving me wrong?

I try to avoid conformation bias as much as possible. Hard to reason with madness though.

You looked for a study that just seemed to prove what you already believed. If you read it you'd understand it doesn't prove what you are saying at all.

Women don't want to fuck bonobos. Lesbians don't want to fuck men.

>>51201363
>approaching
looking in general diraction*

>>51201145

Yeah, it runs into 'You play D&D to get in fights where people will die'. Rape isn't quite the same If you were playing a game set in...I don't know....wherever the fuck strawberry shortcake lives or some other show for 8 year old girls and started murdering people it would be a dramatic tonal shift like rape is in many games.

It's less about inherent wrongness and more about how it shifts the game about it.

>>51201358

> No, nobody is defending literal rape.

> No (saying you'll kill someone if they don't have sex with you isn't rape)

Wut.

And tumblr is where I go to get my rape porn.

>>51201318
>>51201358
Republican Rome would disagree with you.

>>51201112

Hi tumblr, so nice of you to join in.

>Because they chose, of their own volition to discard that object, to relinquish their claim to it. Not relevant to the example I gave.

Completely relevant: despite what MSNBC has told you, a gun is not a magic object that stops you from choosing - a girl can still say 'no' when she has a gun pointed at her, if she consents to sex, then it's consent.

>I agree, same as why because people will all die at some point, murder should be legal, because it's not really that different, and the same as most people probably will sell their car at some point, so we should just be allowed to steal cars, because it's not that different. And most people will probably have surgery at some point in their lives, so if you just knock them over the head and start removing organs with a scalpel it's not really that different from having surgery at some point in the future.

i) Murder isn't legal, sex is.
ii) People sell their cars, they don't (normally) give them away, if the women you know only have sex for money, then that's your problem.
iii) Surgery is done by qualified professionals, are you advocating licenses be required for sex?

None of your 'gotchas' make sense moonbat.

>You getting the pattern here? One is something that tends to naturally happen over the course of our lives, and we either choose to have happen, or is part of being human. The other is something forced onto us by another person against our will.

Forced? Forced how? A women can still say 'no' to sex despite threats. If she's actually unconscious or physically restrained, that's different of course.

>You're being retarded

All non-libs are retards, ok

>I've seen people argue rape isn't bad for all sorts of reasons, but yours is by far the worst. At least "Rape should be legal because I hate women and feel they deserve it" has a solid line of logic to follow, and is in the end just someones subjective opinion.

Keep whining

>>51201416
I guess it's where he wants you to stay

>>51201432
>Completely relevant: despite what MSNBC has told you, a gun is not a magic object that stops you from choosing - a girl can still say 'no' when she has a gun pointed at her, if she consents to sex, then it's consent.

Does that apply to all actions or just sex? If the police torture a subject until he confesses, did he willingly give up the information?

Or if someone threatened to kill your family unless you opened up the safe in your house are you consenting to them taking your stuff?

>>51201432

> a gun is not a magic object that stops you from choosing - a girl can still say 'no' when she has a gun pointed at her, if she consents to sex, then it's consent.

This is going to boil down to, "If a man pointed a gun at my head, I'd totally get shot rather than submit to rape", isn't it?

>>51201389
>But they frequently did. They were attacked, shamed, ostracised etc.
Yeah, the women who fucked Nazi's in Europe but only after it became clear they betted on the wrong horse. And even then they were better off than say, German or Japanese men.

>Evolution doesn't occur over that time.
Of course not, such trends existed for millions of years prior to human civilization occuring and we can see comparable things even among other animals (lions for example). Rape sometimes being used does not discredit that -especially in the long term- women naturally gravitate towards winners regardless of their cruelty or their status as foreigners.

>Otherwise, she said, half joking, “I would have to believe that women want to have sex with bonobos.”
And what happens if we do that? This is politically correct reasoning from result to data, not from data to results. Women are on a fundamental, physical level aroused by bonobos, which means that in an entirely hypothetical (Planet of the Apes-esque?) situation in which bonobos manage to take over, women WILL spread their legs for them. The only question then is if bonobos are aroused by human women (and considering how easily aroused they are, who's to say they aren't?).

>You looked for a study that just seemed to prove what you already believed.
Not really, I just pierce through the bullshit that surrounds controversial studies. Same with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: it was started with the intention of showing that racial intelligence differed due to upbringing, and when this was debunked the report instantly referred to entirely hypothetical pre-birth environmental factors that weren't even considered in the study. Simply because scientists aren't allowed to say certain things and lose all future funding if they do (see: James Watson, Tim Hunt). STEM has become a political minefield.

>>51200731
>These laws are enforced.
In Germany? Don't make me fucking laugh.

>>51179449
>legitimate question

If by "legitimate" you mean it's actual question that is being posited, yes.

If by "legitimate" you mean worth literally anyone's time to ponder, I don't know about that.

Luckily for you, I'm a loser with nothing better to do

>could you use intimidation to non-rape seduce
>intimidation
>non-rape
That's not how it works. If you're intimidating, you're almost assuredly raping. If you're not raping, you aren't intimidating even if you're trying to.

These things are simple, black and white concepts. Stop making them more difficult than they need to be.

>>51201459

> Yeah, the women who fucked Nazi's in Europe but only after it became clear they betted on the wrong horse

No, only after they didn't have protection any more.

> And even then they were better off than say, German or Japanese men.

At least as many civvies died in WW2 as soldiers. The men didn't get raped before they died though, usually.

> Women are on a fundamental, physical level aroused by bonobos

Their vaginas respond to it. That's not the same. That just means vaginas respond to weird shit.

Penises can get hard from all sorts of weird shit. Doesn't mean you're aroused by it.

I've seen a similar study showing a response in men from just seeing a penis ejaculate. Doesn't mean men want to suck dick.

> Same with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study

Oh but you're not Alt-Right. Noo.

>>51180055
The best part of this whole "I can use Google, so I'm an expert!" mentality is that the motherfuckers don't even google shit half the goddamn time.

>>51201363
>according to /tg/ even approaching a girl can be seen as threatening

According to some in this thread, it's probably straight-up rape. Better not approach any girls; it could be considered a mortal threat, tantamount to murder!

File: giphy.gif (982KB, 280x218px) Image search: [Google]

982KB, 280x218px

>>51201459

> Refers to sex as "women spreading their legs"

> Claims he is just a very smart guy "piercing through bullshit"

Come on now dude.

>>51201477
you're idiot then, it's already been discussed in thread that there are multiple ways to use intimidation that doesn't go to rape:

1. second party intimidation
>>51188649
>>51189022
>>51182680
>>51200662

1. 3rd party intimidation
Intimidate another man and thus appear more seductive for some women that were watching it

>>51201432
>a girl can still say 'no' when she has a gun pointed at her, if she consents to sex, then it's consent.

Consent is a word with a set definition. It does not just mean agree, and your attempt to redefine it don't change that.

If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your car, and you do, did you just willingly give me your car? As in it is legally my property? Or, would you argue that you did not consent to that transaction, and as such it's theft?

>Murder isn't legal, sex is

Sex between two consenting adults of an appropriate age is. You can't just reduce it to something it's not and claim you win.

> People sell their cars, they don't (normally) give them away, if the women you know only have sex for money, then that's your problem.

Nah dude, doesn't matter, I mean it's pretty much the same thing, so who cares?

>Surgery is done by qualified professionals, are you advocating licenses be required for sex?

Nope, but I'm giving examples of how you consenting to allow a specific individual to do something to you under certain conditions is very different to someone forcing something on you where your only bargaining chip is "Yeah but what if I die instead".

You've attempted to just weasel your way out of them and pretend it doesn't count or there's no comparison to be made, despite no-one but you having this issue.

The original claim was that because women will probably do some variation of X in the future, having a completely different form of X (to the point that it's only X at its most simplistic level) forced upon them is close enough so should be okay.

Also, I'll remind you that bringing up that murder is illegal so therefore wrong, or that surgery is absolutely only okay when done by licensed professionals on an informed and absolutely consenting patient when you're arguing that rape is okay is a really poor point.

>A women can still say 'no' to sex despite threats

When your alternative is death, it's not much of a choice.

>>51201416
>And tumblr is where I go to get my rape porn.
Stay there, then, with the other hypocritical social justice warriors, I guess.

>>51201506

> You can force a woman to have sex with you at gunpoint, it's not rape

> You disagree? You must think I can't even TALK to women right?

Fucking manbabies

>>51201518

Honestly I don't think it's worth bothering anymore. These people drank deep from the cup Alex Jones pissed in.

>>51201523
>some anons argue that " If you're intimidating, you're almost assuredly raping"
>threat can be talking
>they are saying that talking is rape
But he's right tho

>>51201459

If women were aroused by bonobos fucking they would be masturbating to Animal Planet.

You might not know this, but that's not something you hear about very often.

>>51201477
>These things are simple, black and white concepts.
>being this retarded

Intimidation is usually a huge part of seduction, anon. Don't be such a kissless virgin.

>>51201493
>No, only after they didn't have protection any more.
Like I said: after it became clear they didn't bet on the right horse. The Japanese women who fucked American men didn't become as ostracized because they fucked the clear, indisputable winners. The European women who fucked Nazis simply fucked the guys with the best chances of winning (they fucked wrong).

>At least as many civvies died in WW2 as soldiers.
Yeah, your point being? Also
>Implying rape in the military hasn't been a thing for most of human history

>Their vaginas respond to it. That's not the same. That just means vaginas respond to weird shit.
Which might have an evolutionary reason, such as women having to be willing to fuck whoever is convenient to fuck at that time, while men benefit from simply wanting to fuck the most attractive woman in the room?

>>51201510
Are you really implying women don't control if and when sex happens (assuming rape isn't a possibility)? Are you really implying that men don't in general have a much higher sex drive than women, and that pussy is the most powerful currency women have?

>>51201543

I believe the idea was more 'If you are intimidating INTO SEX you are almost assuredly raping'. It's the 'Into sex' part that makes it rape.

>>51201523
>You can force a woman to have sex with you at gunpoint, it's not rape

Is this the Strawman Olympics? I guess I must've missed the sign.

>>51201552
>Are you really implying women don't control if and when sex happens

Both people have control if and when sex happens. It takes two to tango.

>>51201493
>I've seen a similar study showing a response in men from just seeing a penis ejaculate
Sounds rational. By using empathy one could "feel" how other person feels. So seeing another male pleasure one could associate with his own pleasure and feel it in weakened state, which would lead to sexual reaction.
In the same way when you see someone in pain you feel uncomfortable from their pain.

>>51201538
>they're not liberals so they must be wrong.

Missing that CTR paycheck? Now that you lost I mean.

>>51201543

There are lots of ways people use the word intimidate. If you're going by the strict definition, to compel someone to sex via a threat is rape.

If you're just a "very smart" guy who is intimidating intellectually, you're fine.

There is some nuance in the use of the word, sure. Doesn't mean you can force someone to sex via gunpoint and it not be rape.

Which is the dumbest argument I've ever read.

>>51201565

>>51201432

>>51201565

I believe that's in reference to:

>>51201432

>Forced? Forced how? A women can still say 'no' to sex despite threats.

Where they kinda are arguing that holding someone at gunpoint for sex isn't 'forcing them to have sex'

>>51201570

Exactly my point.

Men getting hard from seeing hard cocks doesn't mean they want to fuck men, or would be okay with men raping them.

Just means they associate it with sex, sex with women, and they like sex with women.

>>51201569
>It takes two to tango.
And what happens when one has a much higher biologically ingrained desire to tango? I'll have to ask you once again: do you really doubt that men have a much higher sex drive than women?

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1

I shouldn't even have to post a link to "prove" this self-evident truth.

>>51201548
I refer to the above link, and it describing how social and cultural values play a big role for female sexuality. It's not acceptable to fap to bonobos so women don't do it, even if it arouses them on a purely physical level, it has been ingrained in their minds that it's "not right". That doesn't change that it physially arouses them.

That, and women simply watch less porn and masturbate less. Because, here's a shocker, their sex drives are significantly lower and more context-dependent.

>>51201518

>Consent is a word with a set definition. It does not just mean agree, and your attempt to redefine it don't change that.

Ah yes, the 'buyers remorse' response - a girl can consent to sex and then the next day when her peers find out and call her a slut she withdraws her consent, retroactively making it rape.

>Nope, but I'm giving examples of how you consenting to allow a specific individual to do something to you under certain conditions is very different to someone forcing something on you where your only bargaining chip is "Yeah but what if I die instead".

So when your examples are revealed to be talking points bullshit you back away from them.

>The original claim was that because women will probably do some variation of X in the future, having a completely different form of X (to the point that it's only X at its most simplistic level) forced upon them is close enough so should be okay.

Wrong

>Also, I'll remind you that bringing up that murder is illegal so therefore wrong, or that surgery is absolutely only okay when done by licensed professionals on an informed and absolutely consenting patient when you're arguing that rape is okay is a really poor point.

This may shock you tumblrina, but sex is not murder, nor is it surgery, different standards apply.

Great, I just realised I'm arguing with a 'all sex is rape' feminist.

>When your alternative is death, it's not much of a choice.

So you accept that there is a choice?

>>51201552

> Like I said: after it became clear they didn't bet on the right horse.

Women were not totally cool with collaborators up until France was liberated. They hated them throughout occupation.

It's just those women were PROTECTED.

> The Japanese women who fucked American men didn't become as ostracized because they fucked the clear, indisputable winners

Japanese women who fuck American GIs are still ostracised TODAY.

> Yeah, your point being?

That your observation about how women were spared war is fucking asinine. Not saying there were more or less victimised. Just they had their fair share.

> Which might have an evolutionary reason, such as women having to be willing to fuck whoever is convenient to fuck at that time

Pure unscientific conjecture. As the scientist who did that particular study made sure to note.

>>51201614

Men wanting sex more doesn't mean that control of sex is an exclusively female thing. It is entirely possible for a man to not be into it.

>>51201614
>social and cultural values play a big role for female sexuality.
how does it play and why it does? Because with men they fap to whatever they like and don't give two shits about what society says about their likes, just how many men are fapping to loli porn even though society says that it's pedophilia

"mmm, delicious bait"
- /tg/

>>51201518
>If I point a gun at you and tell you to give me your car, and you do, did you just willingly give me your car? As in it is legally my property? Or, would you argue that you did not consent to that transaction, and as such it's theft?
Yes it is valid legal action ownership is passed, and also it is a robbery.
But due to your statement of will was faulty you can revoke it. At least that is how it is where I live and how Roman law looked at it.

>>51201552
>women having to be willing to fuck whoever is convenient to fuck at that time, while men benefit from simply wanting to fuck the most attractive
I think that you are mistaken anon.
Based at also unspecified scientific research I remember that women looks for a:
Caring, nice, successfully guy for relationship purpose, as he will provide for her and her children.
And they look for most attractive male for reproduction purpose.
While man does not need anyone to take care of him(in theory) so he looks for most attractive female to have kids with.
All of that is modified by socialization and thought patterns that goes with it.
But even in case of wild people woman is not willing to fuck with anyone but with best possible mate, same as male.
Taking into consideration technological progress and smaller and smaller women reliance on men I'd predict that sexual preferences between sexes will become the same: Fuck most attractive person of different sex that you can convince to have sex with.

>>51201660
go back to whatever shithole you crawled out you bigot

>>51201640
>Women were not totally cool with collaborators up until France was liberated.
Fucking hell, the only thing in France that killed more Nazi's than the resistance were STDs. There were some women in the resistance, sure, but there are also men with lower sex drives than most women. They're anomalies.

>Japanese women who fuck American GIs are still ostracised TODAY.
[Citation needed]

>That your observation about how women were spared war is fucking asinine.
>Not saying they were more or less victimised.
...You're serious?

>Pure unscientific conjecture.
It's an uneagerness to draw conclusions based on an undesirable end result, no more than that.

>>51201641
>Men wanting sex more doesn't mean that control of sex is an exclusively female thing.
Do you understand how supply or demand works? If the demand is high and if you can control the supply, you hold power. The only scenario in which women would not hold power is in a hypothetical situation where prostitutes are free/tax-funded and visiting one is just as normal as visiting a dentist.

>>51201614

> It's not acceptable to fap to bonobos so women don't do it, even if it arouses them on a purely physical level

You genuinely believe women WANT to fuck chimpanzees, but society says no.

By that logic, men WANT to suck dick. Since seeing a penis "arouses" them.

>>51201681
I agree that it's stupid to believe that woman would want to fuck chimpanzees, woman don't even want to fuck 80% of men why would they fuck even lesser beings

>>51201631
I know you are baiting, but I am gonna ask you a simple question: If I round up a bunch of people, and threaten them at gunpoint to pick cotton at my farm, with no remuneration, would that not be slavery because they agree to do that rather than being shoot?

>>51201678

> There were some women in the resistance, sure, but there are also men with lower sex drives than most women. They're anomalies.

Women didn't like collaborators. This is a historical fact. I'm not talking about joining the fucking Resistance, I'm talking about stigma.

They didn't just change their minds based on the victor.

> ...You're serious?

Yes. Dying from your tank exploding and dying from your house collapsing in a fire are pretty remarkably similar awful events.

> It's an uneagerness to draw conclusions based on an undesirable end result, no more than that.

That's literally admitting that the only reason you have this conjecture is because the alternative would be undesirable.

That's a clear bias.

>>51201705
hi BLM

don't you have a mentally handicapped white person to torture and livestream?

>>51201631

> a girl can consent to sex and then the next day when her peers find out and call her a slut she withdraws her consent, retroactively making it rape.

And now the bigot makes himself even more obvious.

> So you accept that there is a choice?

Choosing to do something under penalty of death isn't consent. How difficult is this for you to understand?

So if someone douses you in gasoline and says you have to suck a hobos cock, and you comply, you are consenting? That person did nothing wrong?

You LIKE hobo cock?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Sex trafficking is based on threats of violence and abuse.

You telling me some black guy forces your daughter, girlfriend, wife, mother to have sex with him - that means that woman wanted to do it?

You're evil.

>>51201631
>Ah yes, the 'buyers remorse' response - a girl can consent to sex and then the next day when her peers find out and call her a slut she withdraws her consent, retroactively making it rape.

We're talking about being raped at gunpoint, not consensual hookups.

>So when your examples are revealed to be talking points bullshit you back away from them.

I explicitly explained how they applied actually.

>Wrong

Nope.
>>51200869
>Women are going to have sex with someone at some point, so if you point a gun at them and tell them it's going to be you, right now, then that's going to not be very different from them having sex with someone at some point in the future.

>This may shock you tumblrina, but sex is not murder, nor is it surgery, different standards apply.

Sure, and those standards are laid down and very simple to understand, as the basis of them is "as long as two adults (or individuals of the aoc in your country) consent to have sex, it's legal".

Consent also has a definition already laid out, which excludes the ability for it to be considered valid consent when given under duress.

>So you accept that there is a choice?

It's a completely null point to make, death is obviously not an option, as our survival instincts simply won't let us make that choice the vast majority of the time. People are compelled to survive as best they can. This does not mean you've given your consent for the action to happen, it means you've been forced to give consent, or, to shorten that a bit, you've been forced to do it.

Force doesn't necessarily mean you've been physically made to do that thing in this context, is that really that complex?

>>51201694
Please don't bring up that 80/20 crap, that's proven to be not what you're saying literally a sentence or two later in the source it comes from.

It suggests that if anything, women aren't as picky with their partners as men, because they're willing to partner with people that they might not see as attractive.