Amarna Forum

Today a bunch of norwoodism is going around my X feed. Hamas is accused of raping a woman and sending a video to her family. The video is not posted so I doubt it actually happened. Even so, people are saying that this is beyond war. Apparently it's more okay to kill a bunch of people, not as a schizoid with an AR but if you call yourself an "army" and declare "war" first, but absolutely under no circumstances is it at all tolerable to rape a war bride. Lol.

Anyway, in response to this norwoodism, I want to argue why rape is good, actually, and why therefore there should be more rape in the world.

First, defining rape. Rape is when a man has sex with a woman because he decided to.   Consent is a fake concept. In rape, the woman may or may not enjoy the sex. The important thing is that the man doesn't care. Legal western "sex" happens because the woman decided she wanted sex. Men comply in part because they are scared of the consequences of not complying. Men are kept in a constant state of sexlessness so that they will perform on demand, like a trained seal that is starved before a performance. In this way, modern Westen sex is rape^-1, when a man has sex with a woman because she decided to.

Rape is good and rape^-1 is bad. You can prove this under a bunch of different moral frameworks:

Utilitarianism: rape is enjoyable by both men and women. Women enjoy rape more than rape^-1.

81.6% of women don't orgasm from intercourse alone (without additional clit stimulation), and only 18.4% of women report that intercourse alone is sufficient to orgasm.

In contrast to rape: “I’ve assisted more young women than I can count with this very issue…There have been very few studies on orgasm during rape, but the research so far shows numbers from 10% to over 50% having this experience. In my experience as a therapist, it has been somewhat less than half of the girls/women I’ve worked with. (For the record, I have worked with very few boys/men who reported this.) In professional discussions, colleagues report similar numbers.”

A study published in the Journal of Sex Research in 2009 found that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy.

Men enjoy rape^-1 less too because they have to perform for too long and are sexually starved before and after.

Christian Morality

GENESIS 3:16 --

To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
    but he shall rule over you.”


EPHESIANS 5:22-33 --

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

For Christians, the only issue of raping a war bride is the lack of a Christian marriage. If she is married first, she can be raped. There were no anti marital-rape laws anywhere until the 1960s, ever. Even in 1950s America, much less 100 AD Rome, a husband can simply throw his wife down on the bed and rape her and this is 100% expected, good, and legal. For Christians, rape is good and rape^-1 is wicked. However, rape before marriage is bad.

Darwinism

When rape is banned the fuck rate and the TFR tank.



Not hard to see why this is. Women have low sex drives and rape^-1 is unenjoyable. Banning rape basically means banning sex. Banning rape is also dysgenic because it penalizes alpha males and privileges simps, who are genetically inferior.

Alpha males should be raping women en masse producing 4+ alpha male babies per female.

Conclusion

Hamas's rape of the woman was an enjoyable, Abrahamic, and eugenic act, when ignoring the violence (I believe she was killed but this is a different thing) and the race component (Hamas is brown). It was probably the best sex she ever had with the most chad a violent alpha male she had ever met. Her boyfriend watched, this was eugenic as he was apparently a loser who got beat by superior Hamas.
 
We conclude that there should be more rape in the world. Men and women would be sexually happier. There would be more eugenic babies entering the world, and it would be more Christian than rape^-1, as long as people wait until marriage to rape.

All of these points were made far more eloquently and concisely by J.S. Groyper two years ago, without lionizing retarded dunecoons as "alpha males" or feeling the need to pointlessly appeal to Semitic religious traditions. I hate the Amarna Forum.

I have to say, we never have a lack of good content here for better or worse.

Does it really make sense to call "normal" sex, in the sense of not pozzed, rape? You arrive there from inverting the now common definition of rape, which is mostly correct I think. But if you see that the contemporary idea of rape is wrong, why keep calling it rape?
("It" being the parts of rape that are actually just sex, the contemporary definiton of rape also includes acts that I think deserve that label, as you'll see below)
From the perspective of a build-your-ideal-society framework, rape should be a legal term used to limit intercourse where we don't want it. That is, not all undesirable sex needs to be called rape, but some if it is most effectively prevented that way. Our society right now does this too, it's just all sex that's undesirable apparently.
To adress the example in OP, it makes complete sense for Israel to condemn the rape of their women by goatfuckers. That's basically what the word was invented for. I don't think we or anybody else should call Arabs having sex eugenic just because it involves a situation that runs against lib sensitivies.
In the end, I am convinced that all that's needed to ameliorate the rape/sex tension in our society is ditching consent-based morality and legality. I think we should continue to call forced sex rape (as in, Achmed uses physical force to have sex with Betty), but change the requirements of what counts as proof and change the porn-brained expectation that women should "enthusiastically consent" to sex.

>women have no sex drive
They do, and you believing they don't is hilarious given your other threads.

Women don’t actually like sex, they’re merely impressionable. If tomorrow every man said that he hated sex and wouldn’t date women who liked it, in a week all women would disavow sex. If the same thing happened with women (won’t because women are incapable of making their own decisions), “rape” rates would skyrocket within the week.

(10-29-2023, 06:04 PM)The Green Groyper Wrote: [ -> ]I have to say, we never have a lack of good content here for better or worse.

I *just* realized who you remind me of! You are exactly like that faggot Corvinus under Jim's replies on Jim's blog. Vaguely right wing in pretense but constantly pearl clutching about anon chuds who joke about r@pe or the type of proto-TND spoken of under late '10s Jim's Blog. 
Your standard response, like his, break down into two camps, being an annoying libtard who moralizes-and being an annoying libtard who acts detached and above it all despite being nothing more than an annoying libtard.

(10-30-2023, 11:19 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]>women have no sex drive
They do, and you believing they don't is hilarious given your other threads.

then why the fuck rate so low genius?

(10-30-2023, 09:47 AM)GymChad Wrote: [ -> ]

Classically rape meant the theft of virginity or of another man's wife. So a whore could not be "raped". Thus modern women, unless they are virgins or a very rare unicorn tradwife, cannot be "raped" in the traditional sense. They can only be nuraped, i.e. given sex when they don't "want" it. The Israeli girl, being a whore, was not raped in the classical sense.

Yes. You should stick to this definition rather than creating a roundabout new one that still references female consent for some reason. The word rape should only be uttered in a court of law, and the only time female consent should ever be considered by the law is in deciding whether a woman was a willing whore who should die with her rapist.

(10-30-2023, 09:47 AM)GymChad Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you about moving away from consent based morality but I diesagree with calling forced sex rape. All real sex is forced because women have no sex drives. You can call interracial sex racial rape perhaps. But ultimately 145 IQ men with aspergers must have the right to use physical force to have sex with Betty.

(10-30-2023, 11:22 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Women don’t actually like sex, they’re merely impressionable. If tomorrow every man said that he hated sex and wouldn’t date women who liked it, in a week all women would disavow sex. If the same thing happened with women (won’t because women are incapable of making their own decisions), “rape” rates would skyrocket within the week.

Women absolutely have sex drives. The fact that you guys have never experienced a slut in heat is a subjective phenomenon.



I used to know this girl who was a complete libtard—into witchy feminism and would get very upset over campus rape statistics. One time we were watching the movie Troy and she got very excited over this scene where Brad Pitt rapes his new warbride (in both the traditional and modern sense of the word):



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf8UBpOWk4s



She specifically loved the way "he just rolls over and puts it in." At the time I was very naive and clueless about women, and I was shocked that her desires were in such glaring contradiction to the principles she was constantly yammering about.


Women get very horny and they are all into rape. They like having it taken from them against their will, words fail at this point because whatever the female brain experiences during sex repels coherent definitions. The operative distinction between "rape" and "hot sex" is the man in question, not the boundaries that were crossed in the act. And they think you're a gigantic loser incel for believing in boundaries at all, including the ones they set themselves. Therefore all words, definitions, and laws must remain the exclusive dominion of men no use or influence over them must be allowed to women in any way. Rape must be defined as an offense against a man's property, and enforced only on behalf of a male complainant, or else it quickly becomes an anti-law. And the women should all be kept in chains.

(10-30-2023, 10:07 PM)GymChad Wrote: [ -> ]then why the fuck rate so low genius?

Hypergamy. You should read the highlights from Jim and Rollo. Women want to get fucked by men whose status (as women perceive male status) is higher than that of other men, and also higher than their own. Most men fail the first count as a necessary numerical fact, the internet and mass media also drastically skew the field of comparison; presently all men are artificially made to fail the second count, as men's naturally higher status over women is defined to be lower by convention for the sake of equality. The women are still a bunch of whores having wicked sex primarily with the wrong kind of men, but their attractions are dampened by more and more men being stifled/indoctrinated into being unmanly, and treated as contemptible regardless of how manly they are.

(10-30-2023, 10:07 PM)GymChad Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2023, 11:19 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]>women have no sex drive
They do, and you believing they don't is hilarious given your other threads.

then why the fuck rate so low genius?

Many reasons come to mind, but ultimately, I don't know. Hypergamy in age of match-apps, low appeal of average mate (for both sexes), endocrine disruption, competition of sex with other shortterm reward mechanism, those are just some possible factors that have been discussed here and on frog twitter up and down. 
But women definitely go out of their way to have sex and will initiate contact, conversation for the sole purpose of having sex. They masturbate when they can't fuck, they act feckless and reckless when they're horny, their fantasies involving sex control their actions and desires much more than they do for men - in short, it makes no sense at all that to think they have no sex drive.

(10-31-2023, 12:07 AM)Handi Wrote: [ -> ]I used to know this girl who was a complete libtard—into witchy feminism and would get very upset over campus rape statistics. One time we were watching the movie Troy and she got very excited over this scene where Brad Pitt rapes his new warbride (in both the traditional and modern sense of the word)... She specifically loved the way "he just rolls over and puts it in." At the time I was very naive and clueless about women, and I was shocked that her desires were in such glaring contradiction to the principles she was constantly yammering about.

I have often wondered about these men who are sex-havers yet appear to be true believers in contemporary consent dogma. How can their belief survive any sort of amorous encounter with a woman? Even the most forward BPD whores still expect the man to take charge, in my experience. Either they are only having very strange sex where their girlfriend is telling them what to do the whole time or they're willing to entertain some real cognitive dissonance.

I've found a lot of women want a chimera-a strong dominant masculine man, but also one who repeats all the necessary libtard shibboleths. (As generic conservatism is low status).

I imagine the sort of men who are successful with women today don't really consider the question, they're just one attractive, and two want and get pussy. If that means they have to mutter "yeah sure babe, consent" then if that gets them laid then it doesn't cause any problem.

Thing is, women will absolutely slabber over an attractive man's cock. And will act deferential to a man they are genuinely interested in. If that man makes her feel a bit more comfortable by regurgitating whatever nonsense she believes, all the better. If not, then his looks compensate for it.

I've often thought women are like computers in that way-you have the software(or programming) what you see on a computer monitor, and the actual hardware inside it. Men who are successful women either through education or innate ability ignore whatever she says, they know what she means. They can manipulate the hardware, not caring for the pixels on the screen.

Something every other male, from Beta normies to autistic incels are confounded by-as how women act and how they talk/what they say are two entirely different things.

(10-31-2023, 07:44 PM)The Green Groyper Wrote: [ -> ]I've found a lot of women want a chimera-a strong dominant masculine man, but also one who repeats all the necessary libtard shibboleths. (As generic conservatism is low status).

I imagine the sort of men who are successful with women today don't really consider the question, they're just one attractive, and two want and get pussy. If that means they have to mutter "yeah sure babe, consent" then if that gets them laid then it doesn't cause any problem.

Thing is, women will absolutely slabber over an attractive man's cock. And will act deferential to a man they are genuinely interested in. If that man makes her feel a bit more comfortable by regurgitating whatever nonsense she believes, all the better. If not, then his looks compensate for it.

I've often thought women are like computers in that way-you have the software(or programming) what you see on a computer monitor, and the actual hardware inside it. Men who are successful women either through education or innate ability ignore whatever she says, they know what she means. They can manipulate the hardware, not caring for the pixels on the screen.

Something every other male, from Beta normies to autistic incels are confounded by-as how women act and how they talk/what they say are two entirely different things.

This is fake as fuck, why do incels say this shit? I haven't believed in this since I was 14. It's from reddit TheRedPill where neckbeards would post their fake stories. Lose women are universally gross and all other women express no desire for sex until they're deep into a "relationship" (getting tons of resources from the man).

(11-03-2023, 02:52 AM)Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote: [ -> ]Which means: if a handsome and enterprising young man finds his way into the matrimonial bed of an older, exhausted, man, but one with a sweet and youthful wife, then are we to condemn him? I say not.

What are you trying to say here. It is very unclear. Is this gay? Is the young man cucking the older man? Is it a threesome?