AFVM promotes rape with married men

[Crazy CanuckMember 4215]

AFVM has an article claiming married men have the right to rape their wives. All I can say that I am glad I have no part of the men’s right movement.

http://www.donotlink.com/framed?700323

"If pussy was a stock it would be plummeting right now because you've flooded the market with it. You're giving it away too easy." - Dave Chapelle

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

And their wives have the right to rape them in return. In court.

MRA’s are largely merely ineffectual. AVFM are idiots. It’s like they can’t stop at the mistake of getting married, but have to compound their stupidity.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

MRAs do nothing but p~~~ in the wind.

Getting married is stupid.

Love is a kind of insanity.

Indian men need to wake the f~~~ up.

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[Anonymous 0]

@mgtowwave

indian men will never “wake up” except for the “higher class” guys, this was explained in an interview with an indian born guy and barbar

check it out 😀

Peace

 

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I used to be involved in the MRM. It is important right now to raise conciousness that there is a different perspective from the regular woman good, men bad feminist perspective.

I think they have really made some headway in educating the public.

But they are a paper tiger. All roar, no bite.

MRA’s are losing big time. That’s not their fault. It’s just that things are so out of hand and the feminists have such great power in the professional government culture, not just elected officials, that men will continue to get steam rolled for at least a few more generations.

And over the next few decades this poison will solidify world wide under the U.N. mandate (written by Hillary).

My opinion is that men should go their own way, selfishly and live a happy life. The only one that will care about you is you.

It is the best for the men (most important) and secondarily the best way of teaching women that the basis of their argument that has allowed them to have the hubris to change the legal landscape between men and women is false.

Men don’t need women. With automation of housekeeping, food preparation and soon assisted wombs, women have become irrelevant to the average guy.

And they don’t want him. He should read the memo, take the red pill and get on with a happy, healthy life free from female financial, emotional and physical abuse.

This guy is like a child stomping his feet.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

How the f~~~ can there be “rape” in a marriage?
A marriage contract is a VIP pass to backstage vagina. Anal is still for sale. But vagina is guaranteed.

“Marital Rape”?

What’s next. Is it “molestation” when a fireman rescues a child from a burning orphanage?

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Marital rape, please. When people had to take their vows seriously before no fault divorce plenty of women stopped putting out for men upon marriage.

It used to be “loss of affection” was a clear cut cause for divorce. We used to say a woman became “frigid”. In other words, she got the boot with prejudice if he could prove that she refuses to have sex with him.

No men could ever force themselves on their wives legally. That is total bulls~~~. The idea that a woman should have sex with her husband is the real reason feminists 20 years ago made such a stink about the “marital rape” crisis. 5 out of 4 women experienced marital rape in each of their marriages 8 days per week.

Now asking your wife for sex is going to be a “yes means yes” adventure every time you want sex or you risk your freedom and children. Ready to pledge your lifetime sexuality in her hands? Really? I’m sure you trust her…lol.

If I were married I would put a camera in the bedroom if you value your independence and freedom.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Aware of the whole “alientation of affection” thing, but the same woman who is alienating her husband and closing her legs to him, will have no reservation about freely opening them for someone else.. like his friend.

The $3 Million Dollar Bitch
/audio/3-million-dollar-bitch/

Now when her husband wants some nookie for the $3 million plus property that whore expects to get paid out for NOT F~~~ing her own husband, it’s hardly “rape”. He just wants to have sex and make love to his own “wife”.

“Marital Rape” is a goddam joke. No really. The term is a joke…. just like the concept of a “wife”.

… who some schmuck is ordered to pay $3 million + property for NOT f~~~ing him, as she spreads her legs for his friend for free, before giggling about it on the radio.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

Someone help me here if I’m confused, as I have not yet had my coffee this morning and am still a little sleepy from a late night last night…

A response to this article makes the point that marriage is a general consent for sex, and so marital rape (sex without consent) cannot occur.  Feminists, and at least one mangina in the comments clearly disagree.  I suspect that for at least some (if not most) women, the idea of a general, binding and permanent consent for sex is abhorrent because it eliminates the possibility of raising the price later, when an increased demand in exchange for sex might be met, but prevented by the previous consent.

I would say that if marriage is not the general consent for sex, that feminists should, for as long as they can, continue to pretend that it is.  For as soon as it becomes generally recognized that it is not, there will be an immediate re-examination of what it is women actually offer in a marriage.  They don’t bring property as they all want to ‘marry up’ financially.  They are not offering a man children as everyone knows that the children of any marriage belong to her, and women are not giving up this enormous advantage they have in divorce courts.  In fact, feminists oppose mandatory paternity testing in order to maintain the ability to assign the cost of ‘her’ children to whichever man in her environment is the highest producer.  And now the feminism has freed women to ‘slut it up’ without consequence, there is certainly an alternate supply for the single man.

This assertion that marriage is not a general consent for sex is a thinning of the already very thin veil concealing what giant liabilities women really are in the context of a marriage contract.  If in the context of a marriage contract the children are not his, the resources he produces are not his, and vagina access is not his, then what actually is being offered to him in exchange for signing?  If marriage is not the general consent for sex, then consent for sex (even after marriage) will have to be re-purchased again and again at a price fluctuating to whatever is the daily maximum the market can bear, from a monopolized source, by a captive buyer.

Who the hell is going to agree to be a shopper in THAT market?

 

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[xgreenlanternoxParticipant 253]

Keymaster wrote:

Aware of the whole “alientation of affection” thing, but the same woman who is alienating her husband and closing her legs to him, will have no reservation about freely opening them for someone else.. like his friend. The $3 Million Dollar Bitch /audio/3-million-dollar-bitch/ Now when her husband wants some nookie for the $3 million plus property that whore expects to get paid out for NOT F~~~ing her own husband, it’s hardly “rape”. He just wants to have sex and make love to his own “wife”. “Marital Rape” is a goddam joke. No really. The term is a joke…. just like the concept of a “wife”. … who some schmuck is ordered to pay $3 million + property for NOT f~~~ing him, as she spreads her legs for his friend for free, before giggling about it on the radio.

These are real stories and not staged right??? This s~~~ is so far out there that it’s hard to believe!

[KeymasterKeymaster]

@brainpilot.

Caffiene or not, you have just flattened the entire concept of “marital rape” and permanently drove a steak into its heart.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

xgreenlanternox wrote:

These are real stories and not staged right??? This s~~~ is so far out there that it’s hard to believe!

Is it? How about some more marital rape right here:

/video/wendy-williams-teaches-women-to-trap-men-into-fatherhood/

Now THAT’s “marital rape”. True story bro. Wanting to have sex with your wife (when she “isn’t into it”) is NOTHING compared to that horror…. the way the vast majority of wives will conspire to rape you for life – and laugh about it – while you’re off working 70 hours this week.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

I don’t remember who’s intro it was or where I read it, but it was genius. (Doc Fenderson maybe?) He wanted sex with his wife and she just wasn’t into it. She said something like “can’t you just enjoy holding me for a while?”. But rather than getting angry, he took her shopping the next day. Surprise honey! Let’s go on a spree! He let her try on and pick anything. She wanted this purse and those shoes …. and he said “SURE! sweetheart!”.

When they finally went to the cash register and it was time to pay, he said:
“OK you can put it all back, now. I just wanted you to HOLD it for a while”.

You can imagine the fire and smoke that shot from her eyes.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Men have been sued by their ex wives after divorce for not giving enough sex.

Broadcast it out stupid feminists. Marriage for men does not equal sex.

I dont give a f~~~ I still say Indian men need to wake the f~~~ up.

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[narwhalParticipant]

@brainpilot

Very interesting and logical take on the subject.  Although honestly, I never really considered sex to be part of the marriage contract.  Primarily because, like most men these days, I already had access to sex with my then girlfriend/fiancé.  I didn’t think sex would change, except for the fact that it would theoretically be more frequent since we’d actually be living together.  I never thought that I would have the right to sex when she didn’t want it, or vice versa.  I mostly certainly didn’t think I had the right to sex through physical force (actual rape).

My reasons for marriage had to do with shared resources, wanting a family/kids, wanting a loving partner, and the promise of lifetime commitment through good and bad.    Although I still hold those things dear, it’s quite clear to me now that marriage does not provide those things.   Temporarily perhaps, but at tremendous cost.

Ok. Then do it.

[RoyDalParticipant]

And their wives have the right to rape them in return. In court.

And more than half of them do.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

RoyDal wrote:

I mostly certainly didn’t think I had the right to sex through physical force (actual rape). My reasons for marriage had to do with shared resources, wanting a family/kids, wanting a loving partner, and the promise of lifetime commitment through good and bad.    Although I still hold those things dear, it’s quite clear to me now that marriage does not provide those things.   Temporarily perhaps, but at tremendous cost.

 

narwhal,

I wasn’t implying that you did, or should, have the right to sex through physical force.  I was referring to one of the responses to the article that quoted a judge, apparently from a different century when rules of marriage were still being refined into law (and most women were still virgins until married), who said that (paraphrasing) the act of marriage is the general consent for sex, and that once a woman agrees to marriage, she has agreed to that general consent, and may not withdraw it later.

To me, that judge was implying that either: 1) the withdrawal of consent nullified the marriage and eliminated any marital obligations the married man had had up to that point, Or: 2) that sex without consent could not be claimed within the confines of a marriage, since marriage = consent.

On point 2, it seemed to me that the judge was drawing a line for women and requiring them to either consent, or not, in order to avoid a case where one act of sex could be claimed to have occurred both with, and without consent simultaneously.

I agree that I don’t think I would even want sex if I had to force it (even if it were ‘legal’ to do so), but like you, I see that all the valid reasons for getting married can disappear in the short term on the whim of a wife, while all the obligations I have can extend far into the future where they will be enforced on me by a legal system that guarantees she can continue to receive those benefits from me, while holding her to zero account for her unmet obligations to me.

So my general point was that the only thing left to bait men into marriage was the assurance of sex, and that if marriage does not equal consent for sex anymore, there didn’t seem to me to be anything left at all to bait men into agreeing to it.

All that being said, I remain disappointed that the historical contract of marriage is no longer available anymore.  Were I to have had available to me all the conditions of a marriage of say 100 or more years ago, I might have committed to it for the same reasons you described.
<p style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-family: ‘Open Sans’, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;”></p>

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[AFTParticipant 2726]

BrainPilot wrote:

All that being said, I remain disappointed that the historical contract of marriage is no longer available anymore. Were I to have had available to me all the conditions of a marriage of say 100 or more years ago, I might have committed to it for the same reasons you described.

@brainpilot, don’t forget that the state can always change those rules at any time. Can you imagine getting married at the time of having to prove grounds for Divorce, when there was still a reasonable environment with the “at fault” party being rightfully punished, and innocent party protected. Then all of a sudden No-Fault Divorce rules apply so the environment changes to always protect the female regardless of the facts.
Marriage is a contract with ever changing rights and obligations, set by the gynocracy, we have no idea how it will change in the future. I’m a risk loving individual, but I’m sorry that’s too much risk and exposure to a painful future, for the limited benefit of an aging used up sex organ, that I apparently have no rights to anyway. Historically Marriage was an arrangement to protect family wealth, ever since “love” has become the primary goal, with promiscuity being glorified there is no longer any logical reason to get married.

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Keymaster wrote:

A marriage contract is a VIP pass to backstage vagina.

That’s certainly what it’s sold as, but not what it actually is. Make no mistake marriage has nothing to do with sex. Marriage is merely a contract for the transfer of property. Your property. To her. That’s all it is.

@brainpilot pretty much nailed that one. And sort of covered what I was getting at in my first post. Not only are AVFM mistaking the property transfer contract called marriage for something it is not, they are actively harmfully promoting it as something it is not. Those idiots are putting unwitting men in harm’s way by telling them that all they have to do is find a NAWALT to marry, and then they then compound that harmful line of crap with s~~~ like this, pretty much guaranteeing any man who takes them at their word will get royally, well, raped in the courts is the only term for it..

Of course any man with half a brain who can recognize marriage for what it really is can also see how AVFM are full of s~~~. This is why AVFM is increasingly irrelevant (not that they were ever very relevant to begin with). Any organization that actually wants to accomplish something against gynocentrism, to say nothing of helping men avoid harm, will be telling men NOT to marry.

[jack reacherParticipant 751]

I say if women are not going to acknowledge that marriage inherently allows intimacy, then f~~~ the economic sharing that is acknowledged as inherent to marriage, usually one way, of resources. Every time a woman spends without consent from the husband, she gets charged with theft.

[Author]

Posts