“Femoids are naturally designed to be raped,” incels insist

This is the second or third time I’ve seen a reference to the notion that women are more likely to orgasm from rape than consensual sex (or consensual “starfish,” whatever that means). Where does this claim originate?

Yeah dude, I can tell you right now when I was raped there was no “special lube” from my vagina, it only got wetter because that was blood, not lubrications. Real rape isn’t your porn fantasies

It’s a real mystery why no one wants to fuck these dudes

The holes in a femoid are many

Does he realize that men have many holes as well? There are some other comments I could make here that would probably violate the comments policy.

Dancecel

What is a dancecel? An incel that dances? Probably an awful dancer.

rape is the most natural form of sex

Zoology would suggest this is not the case. Setting aside questions about human nature and what is “natural” for a moment, given that most animal species have evolved ways to fight off unwanted sexual advances it would imply that rape is not the most natural form of sex.

@Karalora
I don’t know, but I would imagine it’s a distortion of the existence of rape fantasies. Some misogynists probably think that the existence of rape fantasies = more orgasms from rape or wanting to be raped or something.

@Elaine the Witch:

Real rape has even less in common with women’s porn fantasies; whatever you might think of Christian Grey or Sheik Ahmed Ben-Hassan, they’re imaginary and a reader can close the book when she’s done with them.

@Karalora:

”Starfish” refers to a woman who lies passively spread-eagled and unmoving.

This society has become extremely cucked and it’s clear we need to revert back to an extreme dictatorship where women are forcibly chained to the wall and raped (in Final Fantasy 7).

Part of being an adult is realizing that there are people who enjoy the same hobbies and activities as you that are churlish, despicable people who would harm you if they had the chance. I am tired of (in minecraft) insert here softening of violent rants. Say what you want to say, no need to bring in beloved video game series into this mess.

Now, please excuse me as I crawl out of my skin.

Nothing to see here. *waves hand at world in general* Just an increasing number of people being more and more vocal about wanting mass murders (sorry, “executions”) or mass rapes.

Someone named gigaslayer seems to object to this line of thinking:

nobody gives a single shit about these trash threads, go write more essays to brainwash yourself further about a whole gender being inferior while first world NEETs [not in education, employment, or training] make more than your salary

Gigaslayer also said this:

go jam a fork into an electric socket you cringey [ableist language deleted]

I’m kinda amazed that this post has yet to be deleted.

@Kat: Welp, “Gigaslayer” is rude, but at least closer to reality than the MGTOWs/not-so-in-cels.

And, yes, these boys have almost as many “holes” as women do. Which means they too must be “naturally designed” for larger, stronger men like Chads to rape.

@WWTH: I can’t figure it out. I mean, they can’t figure it out.

I bred guinea pigs as a kid. My first, a nice male, understood consent, and would spent a fair amount of time being friendly and chatty with the “femoids” first. He was quite the father in the end, and loved by both human and fellow guinea pig alike. I imagine you can buy his descendants from numerous pet shops today.

So… yeah, a next to mindless eating machine of an animal is better than these guys. Way cuter too.

Ugh. Another day, another realization that a decent amount of people believe my gender is nothing more than barely human rapemeat.

I see there’s a ‘Report’ button. I sure hope you clicked on it as many times as you saw something while there, David.

Sometimes I wonder whether the incel mindset and ideas are the result of unchecked privilege, mental illness, some neurological deficiency, or all of the above. In their world, they know the real truth, and the only necessary proof is … having a penis, it seems.
For some reason, I doubt that anyone using terms as “femoid”, “chad”, “hole” and “cuck” are capable of having a healthy relationship.

That’s disgusting, and so are they.

The thing that make women unable to defend themselve is entirely cultural. While being smaller is a disadvantage, it’s far from a big one, and there’s plenty of smaller people who are dangerous as fuck.

That guy have absolutely 0 idea of what a woman is. I wouldn’t bet he know what a human is, period.

Wow, he looks like a winner. A Joker avatar always seals the deal.

@CarrieV
I didn’t notice the report button, so I guess I’m surprised there is one. My guess would be that it’s just part of the forum software that didn’t get deactivated, and probably doesn’t do anything, or it allows the reporting of things that aren’t incelish and horrible enough.

@Teabug

Sometimes I wonder whether the incel mindset and ideas are the result of unchecked privilege, mental illness, some neurological deficiency, or all of the above.

Can we not armchair diagnose incels as a product of mental illness? Mental illness doesn’t make people into monsters like this.

Grooming for violent terrorist acts.

Somehow, when proposing to return to a state of nature unencumbered by morality, incels conveniently overlook their own soft fleshy bodies, slow reflexes, and slow foot speed.

 If humans were stripped of arbitrary and 100% artificial moral rules and reverted to acting according to our natural drives and instincts, men would all be raping…

”If you removed everything that separates us from animals, we’d all be animals.”

Same big-brained logic as “Trump won the election, if you throw out all the votes from California and New York and Arizona and Pennsylvania and Michigan and all the other blue states.”

@Buttercup: This seems relevant for most pontificating on a ‘state of nature’. https://existentialcomics.com/comic/379

Also, seriously, are we sure incels aren’t running a ‘be the most awful kind of individual’-competition?

@Buttercup : also, it’s wrong. Not all animals rapes – in fact AFAIK few do that – and our base instinct are much more to not harm other human and cooperate than to be the Epinal image of an alpha predator they think of.

Not that “alpha predators” are that ruthless. There have been cases of lions adopting other species babies.

They don’t get that the “natural instincts” are already quite complex, and that if we developed nations and continent-sized groups, it’s *because* of theses instincts, not despite them.

@Ohlman

The thing that make women unable to defend themselve is entirely cultural. While being smaller is a disadvantage, it’s far from a big one, and there’s plenty of smaller people who are dangerous as fuck.

While I agree to an extent (and certainly a very well-trained person is going to be able to get the physical advantage over pretty much any untrained average joe) I do think in this context it isn’t the whole picture.

The problem in any situation involving physical or sexual assault, is that you are dealing with a person who is both psychologically capable of heinous acts and determined to inflict violence – which simply isn’t true of most humans and is extremely hard to counter. Furthermore, when it comes to physical fights generally, strength pretty much wins out every time – so if you are faced with someone stronger, you are at a immediate real-world disadvantage.

So I don’t think victims are unable to fight back because of culture in these scenarios – but I do think where culture comes in most strongly is in creating vulnerability for cis and trans* women, and in stopping them from listening to their instincts and disregarding situational awareness because the idea that we must placate men is so strong. Like when someone is giving you the heebie jeebies but you find yourself trying to be polite instead of getting the hell away from them.

@Full Metal Ox
Thank you for the explanation. Also, ew.

@Ohlmann

They don’t get that the “natural instincts” are already quite complex, and that if we developed nations and continent-sized groups, it’s *because* of theses instincts, not despite them.

It’s a similar paradox to that found in Peterson’s lobster stuff: presumably if it were natural for humans to act in a certain way or organize in a certain hierarchy, we’d be doing it already without pseudointellectuals having to tell us.

I know this is a huge side point that doesn’t actually merit any real consideration. But it’s bugging me. Re: Gigaslayer How can a NEET make more than someone who is actually employed? Illegal activities? Parents’ money? Imaginary internal fantasy life? I really need to know how this works.

@Lollypop : while physical strength is a factor, I believe the main one is intending in actually doing grievous harms, which as you correctly say isn’t the normal state for a human. Men are however *much* more trained at overcoming that than women. And that play doubly : not only are women less likely to straight up kill attackers (or maim them, or resist in a way that inflict harm), but men know that and target them more knowing there’s less risk to themselves. While there’s a ton of bravado on them men who say they would kill a would-be rapist, there’s also the simple fact they are more likely to actually do it.

As anyone who have restrained drunk people can attest, physical strength don’t matter nearly as much as you think. Or rather, effective applied strength matter, but psychological state unlock a lot of it. Even a quaint 1m50 women is perfectly able to break bones, which mean *any* fight with a human have the potential to be fatal.

It’s because of cultural norm that the average fight end up with a “winner” and a “loser” (aka the one who flee or is robbed or raped) and not with a dead body and a severely wounded person.

Yeah I’m not even gonna try reading any of the OP. Just… nope. Nope nope nope. Nope.

Also fuck evolutionary psychology and its entire pop culture legacy, but mainly just nope.

I spent my adolescence with a serial killer in town (Peter Sutcliffe). So I learned karate.

To begin with, I had to get over my inhibitions about hitting a pad. Yes, a completely inorganic, non-sentient pad.

I’ve never actually need to use it. Over the years I have had three occsions where I thought my luck had finally run out and I was going to have to resort to violence to protect myself. Every time, as soon as I started mental planning (I’ll count down from 10 and when I reach 2 I’ll go for his face and kneecap in rapid succession…) the man who was threatening me abruptly backed off. It’s almost like my eyes glowed red.

So at least partly cultural.

@ Sheila

You a Bradford lass?

Gawd, I remember those days. It was so awful for women; a proper state of siege almost. And the terrible way the police dealt with the case. Remember “Now he’s moved on to attacking innocent women”? Ugh.

But anyway, he’s gone now. So see if you’re in this video.

I don’t really want to know more about this garbage, but I think it’s strange to claim men would just be raping women “left and right” if not for modern society, even though the OP acknowledges that rape used to be seen as a property crime.

Also, I think it was suggested in Morgan’s The Descent of Woman that in our far-off ancestors, the females, being smaller and lacking the males’ bigger canines, would have been the first to start using tools to crack shellfish and such, since they couldn’t use their teeth to do it. Might not take that much to realize you could also crack a skull using the same method if someone done you wrong. (It’s an old book and I don’t know how believable the hypotheses are, but the various misogynists never seem to realize that if they can just come up with any sort of evopsych rationalizations, then so can everyone else.)

@Naglfar
Not that I know, but I assume “dancecel” means an incel who’s been incel’ed because he can’t dance, like some call themselves “heightcel” because they think their problem is their stature.

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants

”If you removed everything that separates us from animals, we’d all be animals.”

Same big-brained logic as “Trump won the election, if you throw out all the votes from California and New York and Arizona and Pennsylvania and Michigan and all the other blue states.”

I’m reminded of one of the elements of Roko’s Basilisk that I find especially laughable:

Basilisk Guy: So the AI, long after you are dead, creates a digital duplicate of your mind, which is completely indistinguishable from you. It’s impossible to tell which is the original and which is the duplicate.

(Time travel is apparently involved, I guess? How else are they testing the long-dead original?)

Me: It’s VERY easy to tell. The original me is a long-dead human. The duplicate is a digital entity.

Basilisk Guy: No, it’s impossible to tell when you use text-based tests only, like the Turing Test.

Me: Ah, I see. It’s impossible to tell the difference so long as you avoid any and all tests that can actually tell the difference.

Here are two squeaky toys! They are completely identical, and it is impossible to tell which is which. Well, so long as the person examining them is blind, and so cannot see that one is red and the other blue. And deaf, so that they cannot hear that one goes SQUEAK and the other goes SQUAWK. And has no sense of smell, so that they cannot smell that one smells like new rubber and one smells like dog saliva.
But so long as your test meets those criteria, they’re completely identical and impossible to tell apart.
Brilliant!

@Some Chick

Re: Gigaslayer How can a NEET make more than someone who is actually employed? Illegal activities? Parents’ money? Imaginary internal fantasy life? I really need to know how this works.

I expect it’s the common right-wing belief that anyone who doesn’t want to work has a luxury lifestyle funded by the government.

@Masse_mysteria

Might not take that much to realize you could also crack a skull using the same method if someone done you wrong.

And, as we discussed in the other thread, there have historically been many ways for a woman to get rid of her husband.

@Some Chick

 Re: Gigaslayer How can a NEET make more than someone who is actually employed? Illegal activities? Parents’ money? Imaginary internal fantasy life? I really need to know how this works.

By investing their life savings into Game Stop?

@Naglfar

It’s a similar paradox to that found in Peterson’s lobster stuff: presumably if it were natural for humans to act in a certain way or organize in a certain hierarchy, we’d be doing it already without pseudointellectuals having to tell us.

Or having to have laws and severe cultural sanctions curtailing the rights out-groups. Or needing two systems of justice, one for wealthy white men and one for everyone else.

It’s kind of like how men are “biologically” more suited to STEM, so long as they can gatekeep and steal work from women and harrass female co-workers until they leave the field. The narrative is always “women just can’t hack it”, not “men who can’t compete if the playing field is level”.

@Buttercup
It’s also present in the typical fascist contradiction of “[insert scapegoat] are simultaneously weak and easily destroyed but also all-powerful and taking over the world.” Or the other fascist contradiction of how white people are supposedly the master race but somehow are being overtaken by everyone else. Incels avoid that one by insisting that they are subhuman, but somehow still believing they are entitled to sex, which is contradictory in a different way.

@Naglfar – “We are the Master Race, put here to lead everyone. But not enough people want us as leaders, so we have to gerrymander and steal elections.”

And then the violence and cheating they have to resort to in order to maintain power becomes, not an admission of their utter failure to persuade hearts and minds, but further evidence of their mastery. And then the violence is not only justified, but righteous, because the world refuses to recognize their greatness and needs to be taught a lesson.

It’s such a disastrous path, for everyone.

… I don’t remember that bit in Final Fantasy 7…

@Masse_Mysteria

IIRC use of spears among chimpanzees seems to have started with female chimps, soooo yeah.

@ cyborgette

use of spears among chimpanzees 

I’m judging a mooting competition this weekend. The problem is about animal sentience and personhood for a chimpanzee. In the run up to that we’ve been discussing the ideas (helps if we actually know something about the issue). I mentioned a thing were chimps have been engaging in possible ritual behaviour. They’ve been seen doing interesting things with rocks and trees; and they’ve developed this thing where they throw a rock at the tree for what seems symbolic rather than practical reasons. I demonstrated what I meant; and missed the f***ing tree!

So one up for the chimps there.

Study here for anyone interested. Ties in with what you were just saying.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep22219

Masse Mysteria wrote:

I think it’s strange to claim men would just be raping women “left and right” if not for modern society, even though the OP acknowledges that rape used to be seen as a property crime.

I think the OP didn’t really question modernity, but rather the very idea of moral and legal constraints. Incidentally, he seems to intuitively assume that the base nature of human being is being a rapist and probably all-around violent asshole.

Could any kind of society full of assholes function without moral rules? Maybe the OP didn’t bother to think that far at all, because he’s just entertaining the fantasy of free rape. Or maybe he reckons that women’s chastity isn’t really needed (in modern society, anyway) because we already let women have sex with whoever they like.

(It’s an old book and I don’t know how believable the hypotheses are, but the various misogynists never seem to realize that if they can just come up with any sort of evopsych rationalizations, then so can everyone else.)

Oh, snap. I gather that Morgan’s ideas were always considered highly speculative (to put it nicely), but at least back in her day you had to convince a publisher to print your thoughts.

@karalora

I don’t know if it as been mentionned before, but ii, but it comes from a “fake study” urban legend that spread in misogynist circles in 2010. You can read the story on rationalwiki if you want.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shame_and_Guilt_in_the_Aftermath_of_Sexual_Attack

@Lumipuna

he seems to intuitively assume that the base nature of human being is being a rapist and probably all-around violent asshole.

This seems like they’re projecting a lot. My guess would be that the reason society ever functions is because usually most people aren’t violent assholes, the violent assholes just stick out a lot.

@epronovost
There is regular awful, and there is “makes up a study out of whole cloth to justify rape” awful. Holy shit.

Animal related brain bleach.

https://mymodernmet.com/wild-animals-interrupting-photographers/

@Buttercup

By investing their life savings into Game Stop?

This actually made me chuckle. Thank you!

@Lumipuna

I think the OP didn’t really question modernity, but rather the very idea of moral and legal constraints.

Could be. Though in that case it would seem interesting that he sees the past property crime situation as “fair enough”. Like having unnatural restrictions on your supposed base instincts is really very bad, unless if it’s to protect your stuff from the other beast people or something.

@Sillabub
The thing that I most remember Final Fantasy 7 seems to be a pro-environmentalist message, so I guess there’s something for everyone?

I think the FF7 reference is a common meme used for mocking commenting rules at various edgelord forums. First, you say something that more or less amounts to inciting violence (and might or might not put you at some real risk at getting banned). Then you ironically pretend to cover yourself by adding something like “but only in [name of a videogame]”. I guess more advanced versions of this joke refer to games that aren’t even about violence.

The fact that many species have courtship and the fact that the mother has to want to care for the offspring in order for it to thrive disagrees.

Re: “starfish sex”

I just recently saw this English expression for the first time, and thought it was rather descriptive for the idea it attempts to express: head and limbs sprawled in five directions, like starfish arms. A related term seems to be “pillow queen” for (typically woman) partner who likes a bit too much on being a relaxed vanilla bottom.

I gather these are both typically pejorative (or self-deprecating) terms, though the starfish thing is more of a favorite of misogynist chanlords who strive discuss women as sexual objects. It implies a woman who’s lacking enthusiasm in sex, just barely consenting (or perhaps not even really consenting). It hints of an insult, suggesting that she isn’t going wild (like the women in porn, or something like that) because her current partner isn’t special enough (like Chad). Unlike pillow queen, it doesn’t really acknowledge that some women (or men, for that matter) really like being relaxed bottoms, at least some of the time.

The Finnish equivalent of starfish sex is lahnaseksi, which literally refers to the bream, a European freshwater fish in the carp family. It’s a fairly well known concept that sometimes comes up even outside dank internet subcultures. I just saw some discussion on it at my local kink community site.

Basically, there’s this stereotype that men are unimpressed with women who just lie there passively during sex, even though the default assumption for “sex” is still missionary PIV with the man on top. In my experience (as a Finnish cishet man), it’s quite ambiguous what sexual style exactly constitutes being a “bream” – or rather, what would be the opposite. What exactly are women “supposed” to do during missionary PIV sex? Anecdotally, it seems at least some women do grow up wondering this.

I get that in practical terms, a woman’s total passivity during sex would be a likely warning sign of nonconsent or unhappy consent. The usual consent guideline is that your partner should show at least some enthusiasm for the sex. In the case of a female missionary bottom, she’d likely at least squirm or whimper a little. Some women get really loud in missionary, while some tell you outright they prefer some other position.

Then again, in kink circles we reckon that consent doesn’t need to look enthusiastic if it’s been agreed freely and explicitly. Some people have an unusual sexual response, or personal reasons to perform sex as a chore. Some people want to roleplay non-consent. Generally speaking, either vanilla or kink sex cannot be expected to look any particular way.

@Lumipuna

I think the FF7 reference is a common meme used for mocking commenting rules at various edgelord forums.

Yes. Usually the game referenced is Minecraft, though.

re: pillow queen
I have mostly heard this term in wlw contexts to describe a woman who likes to be touched but doesn’t like to reciprocate. I would assume it could also distinguish between a power bottom and a more passive submissive individual.

Speaking of which, sort of weird question: do cishets ever identify themselves with sex role labels like “top,” “bottom,” “switch/vers,” etc? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a straight cis person refer to themself as one of those, but most allo LGBTQ+ people I know identify with one or more of those. Is it just assumed that all straight women are bottoms and all straight men are tops, so they don’t use labels?

I would assume it could also distinguish between a power bottom and a more passive submissive individual.

I don’t think being submissive equals being a passive bottom?

Speaking of which, sort of weird question: do cishets ever identify themselves with sex role labels like “top,” “bottom,” “switch/vers,” etc?

At least many kinksters do, but likely not others. Personally, I think of top/bottom as situational descriptors rather than a personal identity. Consequently, I don’t really identify as a switch either, though functionally I may be one.

@Lumipuna

I don’t think being submissive equals being a passive bottom?

True, hence why I included both adjectives (to describe being passive and submissive at the same time).